Do you have a question about God?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: dan4reason If you take the moon, the rays from the sun cases for dust to be created by it. If the moon was billions of years old, the dust would be miles deep. However, this is not the case

And why isn't the "dust" miles deep? Because dust has weight, pile up enough and you get compression due to gravity, add to the fact that the moon has been pelted for a very long time by meteors, that pack the dust down even further. This is no different than earth, which caused compression on various geological layers which eventually created diamonds. The sun wouldn't be the only source of material on the moon either, obviously since meteors have been pelting it. At one point in time, the moon had to be molten causing its spherical shape, being molten, it eventually cooled down, thus eliminating or transforming "dust" that should be miles deep... Seriously, do creationists purposely try to fool the ignorant?

[dad]

1 Chronicles 21
Deuteronomy 3
Joshua 6
Leviticus 27:28-29
Ezekiel 21:33-37
Joshua 7:15
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Leviticus 25:44-46
2 Kings 10:18-27
Exodus 21:7-11
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Judges 21
Genesis 22:1-18
Deuteronomy 17:12
Exodus 21:15
Exodus 31:12-15
Genesis 38:9-10
Leviticus 20:13
Revelation 9:7-19
Exodus 22:17
Exodus 21:20-21
Deuteronomy 22:23-24

By My reckoning that's around 2.1 million people that God has either directly or indirectly killed. Also rape, abuse & slavery seems pretty high on the agenda as well. Or, was it just certain groups creating a God like entity so as to gain the possession of and to control the flow of power where they want it and then using that Entity to justify the brutality and immorality of their methods. I reckon that if God is real and that if he ever found out how we run the Earth that he created and let us live on, and how the Churches have used his name for their gains, he would wreak upon us a torment that would be worse than Hell itself. One would want to HOPE that he isn't real and not just believe he's not real.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: ItsDarts And why isn't the "dust" miles deep? Because dust has weight, pile up enough and you get compression due to gravity, add to the fact that the moon has been pelted for a very long time by meteors, that pack the dust down even further. This is no different than earth, which caused compression on various geological layers which eventually created diamonds. The sun wouldn't be the only source of material on the moon either, obviously since meteors have been pelting it. At one point in time, the moon had to be molten causing its spherical shape, being molten, it eventually cooled down, thus eliminating or transforming "dust" that should be miles deep... Seriously, do creationists purposely try to fool the ignorant?

I can see the logic in your argument. I have never thought of that before. However, you are saying that dust gets packed into solid rock. Most of the time however, it is the rock that turns into dust. The only for dust to be turned into rock would take heat, compression, and time. There is plenty of time, but I have doubts about the heat and compression. Is there any explanation for this?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: dan4reason I can see the logic in your argument. I have never thought of that before. However, you are saying that dust gets packed into solid rock. Most of the time however, it is the rock that turns into dust. The only for dust to be turned into rock would take heat, compression, and time. There is plenty of time, but I have doubts about the heat and compression. Is there any explanation for this?

As I said before, at one point the moon (and earth for that matter) was molten in its early stages of existence, this is what accounts for its spherical shape. Compression is caused by both gravity(pulling down) and continued bombardment of new dust and rock from meteors piling up, adding weight to existent rock and dust. The moon is NOT only made of dust, just like the earth is not just made of dust. Grab a pair of binoculars when the moon is in the wanning or waxing cresent stage (this is when the sun casts the best shadows created by the mountainous craters and other land formations) and you will see that the moon is not very flat. The sothern end of the moon was hit by a Meteor so large that its "splash" radiates in all directions out to roughly half the size of the moon, the crater left is called Tycho. It created mountains and valleys and left rock all over the place. I have a 16" telescope and I can see even more detail than binoculars, but with binos, and a cresent moon, you will see a lot of shadow and detail.

[Questatement]

Quote by: ItsDarts If you can use appeal to popularity argument, I can too, watch....

Except I didn't and don't. I gave you observational truths and how they either confirm or conflict with various theories.

Quote by: ItsDarts Your white hole argument (which you provided NO evidence for, let a lone a link) is not accepted by the mass scientific population around the world.

I provided a link earlier in this thread. However, for all future references, I recommend that you Google the term in question (White Hole Cosmology in this case) or ask me to Google it for you and then provide you a link.

Quote by: ItsDarts Why should we give any credence to crack pot "Creation Scientists" with the only agenda of trying to prove their belief to bible literalists? When the National Science Foundation peer reviews and accepts this then I will consider it.

This wouldn't be an appeal to popularity argument would it? Because you seem to be against that.

Quote by: ItsDarts Biblical claim are not supported, no matter how many people you CLAIM witnessed it. Religious devotion is not evidence of a god, it it evidence of religious devotion. Many religious people die for their religion. Again, WITHOUT (do you understand that term?) the language of the bible, you have NO EVIDENCE that THOSE events happened. Not one 3rd party reference from the time of the incidents are available. Not one. Its ALL hearsay. Period. Get it?

I have four, mutually confirming, first hand, eye-witness reports written within the witnesses' lifetimes and shortly after the events. All contain numerous, historical references which have been verified around the main plot. All contridict the universal approach to gaining respect and a following by depicting the diciples and future leaders of this movement as totally inept and ignorant. All contain prophetic writings which have subsequently transpired. All integrate perfectly with the overall message of 39 other books that were written hundreds to thousands of years prior in many different cultures by many individuals on the most controversial topic known to man.

Really, what more could I ask for?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Questatement Except I didn't and don't. I gave you observational truths and how they either confirm or conflict with various theories.

Oh, but you did....

How else do you explain tens of thousands of believers, most claiming to be first-to-second hand witnesses to this miracle, choosing death over feigned conversion under Nero?

Clear abuse of argument from popularity and dishonest rebuttal. These are not observational truths, they are hearsay that can't be corroborated. Is tens of thousands of witnesses to the Milk Miracle evidence of the Hindu gods? Of course not, but I won't be surprised that if in a 100 years or so, it will still be talked about, generation by generation until it becomes truth to Hindus. The difference is, we have the scientific knowledge to explain the milk miracle and we have 3rd party records of it. We can't say the same for the biblical miracles. No evidence like video, no 3rd party reference to them as well. The only record is the hearsay story written in the bible. As for "prophecies", there is nothing to say that People didn't read the earlier prophecies of the OT and self fulfill them after the fact. Remember, assuming Jesus grew up a jew, he would have known of a messiah, and he decided (through mental delusion) that he was going to be that messiah. Any miracles he performed were written years after his death, but made no impact until the writings were compiled 300+ years later by Constantine, when there was no way to prove them false.

I provided a link earlier in this thread. However, for all future references, I recommend that you Google the term in question (White Hole Cosmology in this case) or ask me to Google it for you and then provide you a link.

No, you did not (again being dishonest) not in this post when you first mentioned it.

This wouldn't be an appeal to popularity argument would it? Because you seem to be against that.

Actually the last sentence could be considered an appeal to authority, except when the authority IS considered an authority. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism and since the NSF and every other international science foundations agree with each other, and are subject to criticism, and they are fallable in principle, there is no fallacy.

I have four, mutually confirming, first hand, eye-witness reports written within the witnesses' lifetimes and shortly after the events.

Speculation

All contain numerous, historical references which have been verified around the main plot.

Irrelevant.

All contridict the universal approach to gaining respect and a following by depicting the diciples and future leaders of this movement as totally inept and ignorant.

Huh?

All contain prophetic writings which have subsequently transpired. All integrate perfectly with the overall message of 39 other books that were written hundreds to thousands of years prior in many different cultures by many individuals on the most controversial topic known to man. Really, what more could I ask for?

Remember, the books were compiled out of many books, some which only made in the final bible by vote of men 300+ years later. They could easily construct the compilation to have each book "fit" other books, and many books were left out. But thats all irrelevant as well. Its only hearsay to begin with. Any "revelation" becomes hearsay as soon as it is written or told to someone else. What more can you ask for you say? You can ask for evidence that these claimed miracles are possible for starters. To date, no one has been able to provide evidence that they are. You could also ask for evidence of your god without the use of the bible. Surely this god is SO great that we would have external (non-biblical) evidence of his existence? After umpteen pages of debate, you haven't provided one shred of evidence for your god without the biblical language. Without the bible, you have no way of knowing if your god has tri-omni attributes, or any other attributes for that matter. You have no way of knowing what your god is about without your bible. He doesn't show his powers anymore with maybe the exception of the occasional medical miracle, but most of these can be explained as the body having its own power to heal its self. At best, an unexplained medical miracle is just that, unexplained. Saying a god did it is just god of the gaps reasoning.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: dan4reason I can see the logic in your argument. I have never thought of that before. However, you are saying that dust gets packed into solid rock.

Yep... just like year upon year of snow in Antarctica... one of the driest places on earth ...gets compacted into ice that can easily be walked upon, unlike, say, fresh powder show in the Rockies. Or how sand and dirt get compacted into sandstone.

Think for a change. How is it you can walk on the surface of a beach... composed of vast quantities of loose, granulated sand .... and not sink more than an inch or so?

.

[Questatement]

Quote by: ItsDarts Oh, but you did.... Clear abuse of argument from popularity and dishonest rebuttal. These are not observational truths, they are hearsay that can't be corroborated.Is tens of thousands of witnesses to...

Is collaborating historical references by an official Roman historian, antagonistic to the Christian faith, combined with early church fathers who were both living at the time really hearsay? Also, I mentioned the number for the simple reason that smaller groups of such martyrs are abundant in history. There will always be the fringe minority (Jim Jones) but again, good luck explaining the persecution under Nero in naturalistic terms and compliance with human nature.

Quote by: ItsDarts Is tens of thousands of witnesses to Is tens of thousands of witnesses to the Milk Miracle evidence of the Hindu gods? Of course not, but I won't be surprised that if in a 100 years or so, it will still be talked about, generation by generation until it becomes truth to Hindus. The difference is, we have the scientific knowledge to explain the milk miracle and we have 3rd party records of it. We can't say the same for the biblical miracles. No evidence like video, no 3rd party reference to them as well. The only record is the hearsay story written in the bible. As for "prophecies", there is nothing to say that People didn't read the earlier prophecies of the OT and self fulfill them after the fact. Remember, assuming Jesus grew up a jew, he would have known of a messiah, and he decided (through mental delusion) that he was going to be that messiah. Any miracles he performed were written years after his death, but made no impact until the writings were compiled 300+ years later by Constantine, when there was no way to prove them false.

As the saying goes, "you can lead an atheist to evidence... " Gospel Dates and Reliability

Quote by: ItsDarts No, you did not (again being dishonest) not in this post when you first mentioned it.

My apologies, I thought I had provided the link here but didn't test it after posting. Evidentially, it is dead. However, I think dishonesty is a false accusation that you may consider apologizing for.

Either way, here’s a decent review. A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem

Quote by: ItsDarts the last sentence could be considered an appeal to authority, except when the authority IS considered an authority.

A double appeal to authority? Impressive.

Quote by: ItsDarts Huh?

I can't say it better than Frank Turek. Click on "View or download highlights of an I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist seminar with Frank Turek."

Quote by: ItsDarts Remember, the books were compiled out of many books, some which only made in the final bible by vote of men 300+ years later.

Uneducated and misconstrued fairy-tales tend to be easily forgotten and you're mixing up the canonization of pre-existing books with the original penning of those books. These wise men chose books penned only by the apostles who walked with Jesus (except Paul whose writings were endorsed by the apostles) and rejected all others. In the four Gospels, Jesus affirms the OT as 'scripture' and quotes authoritatively from it often. Pretty simple formula for acceptance really. It's called apostolic authority... you know, the guys performing miracles just like Jesus did.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Questatement And just how many of these comets predicted to return to our range of observation have actually been observed 'millions of years' later? That's what I thought... conjecture.

Prove Kepler's law wrong and come back. Predicting comet trajectories are childish games to astronomers. You take the angle between point A and B, you do maths for 3-5 min and you've got the period and the trajectory of the comet.

Sorry, the post was old, but it was so shocking...

If that's a conjecture, what about your point of view?

[Questatement]

Quote by: nerdvincent Prove Kepler's law wrong and come back. Predicting comet trajectories are childish games to astronomers. You take the angle between point A and B, you do maths for 3-5 min and you've got the period and the trajectory of the comet.

Kepler's law deals mainly with the motion of planets within a solar system and artificial satellites. Comets (natural satellites) are the little kids on the block by comparison and a near pass to a planet or even a moon will send its otherwise predictable orbit into an entirely new trajectory. The meteors predicted to return that are in question here are based on the meteor returning to us in an intact form, millions of years later - should it return in the predicted orbit in the first place. However, with trajectories traveling almost straight away from our sun, as is the case with the higher timeline predictions, there is no guarantee that the meteor will ever return into our observational range since Kepler's law is too narrow to apply.

Quote by: nerdvincent If that's a conjecture, what about your point of view?

We see meteors diminish and can predict their lifespan, at least the lifespan from when they enter our view and the numbers are in… it's thousands of years. The odds given to one lasting up to 20,000 years is only 1%. If a good explanation can be given where and when meteors within our solar system came from, such as I have provided earlier in this thread, there is no need to assume a cloud, belt, aliens, or any other hypothetical explanation for their origin.

Nor is there a need to assign long ages to the universe as it applies to this topic.

[Century 25]

Do you have a question about God?

Sure. Why did this so-called 'god' create entropy..? That's a bummer.. of course, if you are.. 'god' well.. lol, the laws of physics don't apply.. to yourself.. uh.. the 'creator' ?? Gee.. I'm confused.. sounds like horse poo-poo now.. or is it like that..? I can't wait to hear

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Questatement Is collaborating historical references by an official Roman historian, antagonistic to the Christian faith, combined with early church fathers who were both living at the time really hearsay? Also, I mentioned the number for the simple reason that smaller groups of such martyrs are abundant in history. There will always be the fringe minority (Jim Jones) but again, good luck explaining the persecution under Nero in naturalistic terms and compliance with human nature.

Yes it is hearsay in light of the fact that there was a new movement being developed. THere was an agenda. If the Roman historian you mention is Josephus, it means nothing. He only mentions "some guy Christos", which is certainly from 3rd party or later sources. Its like me mentioning George Washington. Why is explaining persecution under Nero difficult or even important? Do we not now, in less extreme forms, persecute Scientologists? Persecution of fringe religions has happened throughout history, Christianity was considered Fringe at that time.

As the saying goes, "you can lead an atheist to evidence... " Gospel Dates and Reliability

Thats not evidence, thats a creationist site preaching to the choir. Yet, I was easily able to find another source of "evidence" from Boston College that refutes your creationist site. The dating of the gospels, like you say, you can leas a theist to evidence.....

Either way, here’s a decent review. A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem

Again, nothing that is supported by real scientists. Another creationist site preaching to the choir. Real science isn't out to prove or disprove religious claims. It merely studies evidence and reports its findings regardless of religious claims. Your double standard of accepting creation "science" seems to be because it supports your preconceived beliefs, yet any real science that refutes your beliefs must be garbage science. Too funny! Even IF we were to accept Creation Science (which I don't) it doesn't prove YOUR god. It would prove that mainstream science is wrong, which it doesn't.

Uneducated and misconstrued fairy-tales tend to be easily forgotten and you're mixing up the canonization of pre-existing books with the original penning of those books. These wise men chose books penned only by the apostles who walked with Jesus (except Paul whose writings were endorsed by the apostles) and rejected all others. In the four Gospels, Jesus affirms the OT as 'scripture' and quotes authoritatively from it often. Pretty simple formula for acceptance really. It's called apostolic authority... you know, the guys performing miracles just like Jesus did.

The gospel writers trying to create a new religion. When they went quote mining in the OT, they picked and choosed their verses from either the Septuagint (greek version) or the Mesoretic (Hebrew Version) to make prophecies and I can prove this.

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
(KJV using the Hebrew version)

Hosea 11,1 Early in the morning were they cast off, the king of Israel has been cast off: for Israel is a child, and I loved him, and out of Egypt have I called his children.
(Septuagint)

and here is another "prophecy" being "made".

John 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Zechariah 12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
(KJV)

Zechariah 12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved friend, and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn son.
(Septuagint)

"whom they have pierced" could be construed as a prophecy about Jesus. Septuagint only has »they have mocked me« - a bit short in the crucifixion prophecy department here.

Source

The Septuagint is still considered Canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why should anyone consider any version of the bible you read to be what god had intended its writers to say when we have lost so much in translation? Why is the protestant bible better/worse than the Catholic bible? Who says? How do you know? We don't have ANY of the original gospels to corroborate. What about other gospels that were left out of the vote 300+ years after they were written? Where is the gospel of Judas? Where is the gospel of Thomas? Were these not apostles?

Why do we accept that Paul had a "vision" yet when anyone today has a "vision" we consider them to be nut jobs? Did you know that "visions" of grandeur, like the one Paul had can be explained by epilepsy? Epileptic seizures can cause people to see bright light and hear voices. These types of things were unexplainable back then, it is easy to understand why they thought they were having visions of god(s), but today we treat people with meds, and no gods ever appear.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Questatement Is collaborating historical references by an official Roman historian, antagonistic to the Christian faith, combined with early church fathers who were both living at the time really hearsay?

It's hardly convincing. You're talking about a time when, had I showed up with a bic lighter and a bottle of aspirin, I'd be a miracle worker. As someone (Jack?) pointed out, such prophecies, miraculous events and religious experiences have hardly been limited to Christianity.

Quote by: from Questatement's source "Bible scholars can say little with absolute certainty when trying to reconstruct the timeline of authorship for the documents which make up our New Testament."

And yet, somehow, 'Bible scholars' can pinpoint the exact dates - based on ancient oral histories - of the Great flood and the Creation.

So why is it that 'Biblical scholars' and 'Creation Scientists' arrive at such wildly divergent conclusions from real science. I've already said... real science doesn't have pre-determined dogma that results have to conform with.

Quote by: Questatement Kepler's law deals mainly with the motion of planets within a solar system and artificial satellites. Comets (natural satellites) are the little kids on the block by comparison and a near pass to a planet or even a moon will send its otherwise predictable orbit into an entirely new trajectory.

Yeah, so??? They're still solar satellites and still subject to Kepler's laws, until - if and when - they bump into something else.

Quote by: Questatement Uneducated and misconstrued fairy-tales tend to be easily forgotten...

Like, for instance, the Qu'ran?

Or The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions, Islam, Bahai, Sikhism and Hinduism?

Quote by: Questatement ...and you're mixing up the canonization of pre-existing books with the original penning of those books.

How is picking and choosing which of the pre-existing books that were originally penned not part of the process of declaring what is "Truth" according to God?

.

[Questatement]

Quote by: Century 25 Sure. Why did this so-called 'god' create entropy..? That's a bummer.. of course, if you are.. 'god' well.. lol, the laws of physics don't apply.. to yourself.. uh.. the 'creator' ?? Gee.. I'm confused.. sounds like horse poo-poo now.. or is it like that..? I can't wait to hear

Entropy is more easily explained by the creationist as a design feature to counter those who would 'worship the creation instead of the creator' in their attempts to use the natural world to show evidence for the non-existence of a creator God.

Entropy is a major obstacle to all naturalistic theories related to origins in that information is required to consistently move toward order against the continual tide of entropy - where function within information within the natural universe is, without exception, known to be lost.

It hardly takes an argument of supernaturalism to explain that this is one area within naturalism contradicts itself without the aid of God or the bible, despite my personal take on the potential purpose of this law.

[Jack]

Quote by: Questatement Entropy is more easily explained by the creationist as a design feature to counter those who would 'worship the creation instead of the creator' in their attempts to use the natural world to show evidence for the non-existence of a creator God. Entropy is a major obstacle to all naturalistic theories related to origins in that information is required to consistently move toward order against the continual tide of entropy - where function within information within the natural universe is, without exception, known to be lost. It hardly takes an argument of supernaturalism to explain that this is one area within naturalism contradicts itself without the aid of God or the bible, despite my personal take on the potential purpose of this law.

Creationists promote the falsehood that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit entropy to spontaneously decrease, and therefore evolution could not have happened. According to creationists, entropy can only increase, resulting in a "universal decay" of any and all systems. However, the mathematical laws of thermodynamics make it perfectly clear: it is possible for the entropy of a system to spontaneously decrease, providing the over-all entropy of the system's surroundings increases to a greater degree. Thermodynamics deals in a quantitative manner with the relationship between heat and work. Because of this, its known applications must necessarily be limited to man-made devices and chemical changes for which heat and work parameters can be established. These parameters have been established for a number of biochemical reactions, but this information has not resulted in the general ability to determine the thermodynamics of cell growth in living organisms. Creationists take advantage of this situation by postulating a pseudo science explanation for the obvious flaw in their argument: if all systems can only go in the direction of universal decay, then how can one explain the growth of living things, which is just the opposite of universal decay? Creationist propaganda postulates, with no scientific justification whatever, an "energy conversion mechanism" for living things that "overcomes" the laws of thermodynamics. However, in the case of the evolution of living things, this "energy conversion mechanism" is strangely absent! The controversy can be summed up as follows: Creationist: The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only increase, resulting in a universal decay of all systems. Evolutionist: But the mathematical laws of thermodynamics state very clearly that entropy can spontaneously decrease! Creationist: Well, that is technically true for inorganic systems, but it doesn't apply to living systems. Evolutionist: So you're saying that entropy can not spontaneously decrease for living systems? Doesn't that mean that living things can only undergo universal decay? How then do you explain the fact they grow and reproduce? Creationist: Well, we believe that there is a special "energy conversion mechanism" that allows living systems to overcome the laws of thermodynamics. Evolutionist: First you said the laws of thermodynamics were universal, and now you say they are not. Please explain the discrepancy. Creationist: God can do anything He pleases. The only actual mathematical relationship between entropy and probability is based on the probability of distribution of molecules in a hypothetical "ideal gas." Creationists state that because a flame can not "unburn," its combustion must always result in a 100% increase in entropy. That statement is false, and not supported by the laws of thermodynamics. For example, the Servel gas powered refrigerators operate with a gas flame and no moving parts to produce an entropy decrease in the interior.

Creationism and Pseudo Science

I noticed that a common attack on atheism by theists, mostly Christians, involves thermodynamics. I find this interesting since their belief is out of faith and not of science. This argument seems real to them only due to the fact they do not understand the science very well. So, out comes my old physics book. They state that due to the 'X' law of Thermodynamics, the universe must always be changing into a higher state of entropy or disorder. 'X' has been referred to as the 'First,' 'Second,' 'Third,' and even 'Fourth' (even though no Fourth really exists). Their immediate conclusion follows that highly complex chemical structures like ourselves simply cannot exist since we are creating order from disorder. They then note that God must have been the initiator of this otherwise impossible state of order. This is how I feel we should respond. Imagine a block of ice. Each of its water molecules is fixed rigidly in place in a highly structured and ordered arrangement. The ice is set out to melt. As heat enters the ice, the water molecules are disordered and unorganized. The molecules in a liquid are free to move from place to place. Now imagine freezing water. The disordered and unorganized molecules are placed in the freezer. Heat is released from the water while the molecules assemble themselves into their previously fixed, rigid, and highly organized crystalline structure. Did we just violate the second law of thermodynamics? No! It is possible to freeze water. The process of freezing and melting water is a change in physical state. This is called a reversible process. Chemical reactions are reversible processes. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of the universe does not change when a reversible process occurs and increases when an irreversible process occurs. If entropy does not change then no laws are violated.

Thermodynamics, Entropy,
and Creationism
Kelly Jowett, WSU Chemistry
Thermodynamics, Entropy, And Creationism Kelly Jowett, WSU Chemistry (Reply) (8-00)

Further reading:Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987): B. L. Hu and Henry E. Kandrup - Entropy generation in cosmological...

[Questatement]

Quote by: ItsDarts Yes it is hearsay in light of the fact that there was a new movement being developed. THere was an agenda. If the Roman historian you mention is Josephus, it means nothing. He only mentions "some guy Christos", which is certainly from 3rd party or later sources. Its like me mentioning George Washington. Why is explaining persecution under Nero difficult or even important? Do we not now, in less extreme forms, persecute Scientologists? Persecution of fringe religions has happened throughout history, Christianity was considered Fringe at that time.

It was Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117), in the book of Annals. Only the most radical fruitcakes dispute this passage...

"But all human efforts, all the emperor's gifts and propitiations of the gods, were not enough to remove the scandal or banish the belief that the fire [summer, 64 C.E.] had been ordered. And so, to get rid of this rumor Nero set up as culprits and punished with the utmost cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment this pernicious superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome, the place where everything that is sordid and degrading from every quarter of the globe finds a following. Thus those who confessed were first arrested, then on evidence from them a large multitude was convicted, not so much for the charge of arson as for their hatred of the human race. Besides being put to death they were made objects of amusement; they were clothed in hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others were set on fire to illuminate the night after sunset. Nero threw open his grounds for the display and put on a show at the circus where he mingled with the people dressed like a charioteer and driving about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, evens towards these men who deserved the most exemplary punishment since it was felt they were being killed, not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual."

Tacitus only says that Nero "killed a large multitude of Christians." However, later we have a few statistics. During the persecutions under Maximus, nineteen hundred Christians were martyred in Sicily alone. Diocletian killed seventeen thousand in one month. Eusebius says that during one of the persecutions, ten thousand men (not counting women and children) were killed in Egypt. The "executioners blunted their swords" and had to work in relays. These later numbers should reflect the accuracy of early church writers who put the numbers in the tens of thousands under Nero.

However, aside from the first and second hand, eye witnesses to Christ's resurrection under Nero's persecutions, these later persecutions also demonstrate an unnatural resolve with no comparison in any known historical records. It's one thing to be killed by force for ones faith but to die in mass by choice when recanting is an option? Find me a historical comparison if you dare, then explain why Christianity is more delusional than any other religion which history records mass, feigned conversions under the same circumstances.

Quote by: ItsDarts Your double standard of accepting creation "science" seems to be because it supports your preconceived beliefs, yet any real science that refutes your beliefs must be garbage science. Too funny! Even IF we were to accept Creation Science (which I don't) it doesn't prove YOUR god. It would prove that mainstream science is wrong, which it doesn't.

Except that I demonstrate the problems and argue the conflicts with the science that I consider 'garbage.’ I only wish more atheists around here would do the same.

Quote by: ItsDarts The gospel writers trying to create a new religion. When they went quote mining in the OT, they picked and choosed their verses from either the Septuagint (greek version) or the Mesoretic (Hebrew Version) to make prophecies and I can prove this.

What of the prophecies of the destruction of the temple? Every time a prophesy is given and then fulfilled in the Gospels, the writers are more than happy to note it. In fact, they go into greater detail about the fulfillment as the prophecies themselves tend to be rather brief. This would make perfect sense with your philosophy of desiring to create a new religion and making sure to include as many of the fulfuillments as possible. Yet, the occurance of the destruction of the temple is strangely absent. I don't think you can have it both ways, my friend.

Quote by: ItsDarts The Septuagint is still considered Canonical by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why should anyone consider any version of the bible you read to be what god had intended its writers to say when we have lost so much in translation? Why is the protestant bible better/worse than the Catholic bible? Who says? How do you know? We don't have ANY of the original gospels to corroborate. What about other gospels that were left out of the vote 300+ years after they were written? Where is the gospel of Judas? Where is the gospel of Thomas? Were these not apostles?

Nope, they were not among the 12 apostles whose written testimony was backed up with the miracles needed for apostolic authority. As I said, it's a pretty simple criterion for inclusiveness.

Quote by: ItsDarts Why do we accept that Paul had a "vision" yet when anyone today has a "vision" we consider them to be nut jobs? Did you know that "visions" of grandeur, like the one Paul had can be explained by epilepsy? Epileptic seizures can cause people to see bright light and hear voices. These types of things were unexplainable back then, it is easy to understand why they thought they were having visions of god(s), but today we treat people with meds, and no gods ever appear.

Okay but since when does epileptic seizures lead to the ability to perform miracles? Note the sentiment of the crowd toward Jesus as it relates to the synergy between his words and actions...

"All the people were amazed and said to each other, "What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out."

[Questatement]

Quote by: Jack The process of freezing and melting water is a change in physical state. This is called a reversible process. Chemical reactions are reversible processes. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of the universe does not change when a reversible process occurs and increases when an irreversible process occurs. If entropy does not change then no laws are violated.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the net entropy within an ISOLATED system is always increasing or remains constant.

Water to ice, heck, even life on earth can potentially escape the second law of thermodynamics because they are NOT isolated systems.

However, naturalists have an entire universe (an ISOLATED system) to explain just how it 'grew' into the state of order we presently understand it to possess, against its own laws regarding entropy.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Questatement Entropy is more easily explained by the creationist as a design feature to counter those who would 'worship the creation instead of the creator' in their attempts to use the natural world to show evidence for the non-existence of a creator God. Entropy is a major obstacle to all naturalistic theories related to origins in that information is required to consistently move toward order against the continual tide of entropy - where function within information within the natural universe is, without exception, known to be lost. It hardly takes an argument of supernaturalism to explain that this is one area within naturalism contradicts itself without the aid of God or the bible, despite my personal take on the potential purpose of this law.

Despite your personal take, or the so-called 'creationists' or 'intelligent (lol) design dark-ager's, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a fact. It is called a 'law' same as other credible.. proven facts of science. This fanatical crap that the dark-ager's (religions) keep trying to drag our advanced (technically) civilization down into the pit of ignorance with.. well, it is a forever recurring theme, not just an item to smirk and shake one's head & ignore. This is a serious threat to our very survival. We need a clear thinking, scientifically aware populace to exist for too long.



Part of an infinite regression of 'intelligent' designers. Sheeet..!! They never give up..!!

Man.. it's 2 centuries past Darwin. That anyone today would take this dark age baloney to heart.. is sick.

The 'universe' may linger for trillions of years.. but it isn't going to 'last' - and it ain't gonna be pretty. Humans - us.. lol, we won't be around to see that. We.. all of our longest surviving civilizations, will be long gone in a very, very much shorter time. There won't be any 'creator' wringing it's ..'kindly' hands to help us. Stars.. civilizations.. there are probably many - and were many more. Entropy always wins. There ain't no such thing as a 'free lunch' or perpetual motion.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Questatement It was Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117), in the book of Annals. Only the most radical fruitcakes dispute this passage...

BORN 25 to 30 years AFTER Christs death, anything he wrote was hearsay regarding the existence of Jesus. Not a first had witness. How many years after Jesus' death was the article you cite (without agenda ridden links again) written? 40, 50, 70 years later? Its all hearsay. Its like you writing about Allah, you could write what you know about him from third party sources, that doesn't make Allah truth. Again, persecution is NOT evidence of a god, its evidence of stupid people suffering for nothing. If you want to argue persecution as evidence of a god, then I think the muslims have Jesus worshipers beat by a mile.

Except that I demonstrate the problems and argue the conflicts with the science that I consider 'garbage.’ I only wish more atheists around here would do the same.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You've shown a few crackpot scientists who can't get published by the scientific community at large. All they have to do is provide EVIDENCE to the scientific community, let THEM test it and confirm or deny their findings. Scientists aren't out to snub anyone that actually has evidence to support their theories.

What of the prophecies of the destruction of the temple? Every time a prophesy is given and then fulfilled in the Gospels, the writers are more than happy to note it. In fact, they go into greater detail about the fulfillment as the prophecies themselves tend to be rather brief. This would make perfect sense with your philosophy of desiring to create a new religion and making sure to include as many of the fulfuillments as possible. Yet, the occurance of the destruction of the temple is strangely absent. I don't think you can have it both ways, my friend.

I predict that the WTC will crumble after being hit by airplanes. If I write that down on some piece of papyrus, without dating it, and someone finds it 30 years later, and decided to start a religion based on that "prophecy", there is no way you could refute that as a prophecy. To make it even more authentic, I can write that "prophecy" down on a piece of papyrus made many years before the WTC collapsed, then when someone went to "Date" it, they could see that it was written "before" it happened. Charlatans date all the way back to as far as recorded history.

Nope, they were not among the 12 apostles whose written testimony was backed up with the miracles needed for apostolic authority. As I said, it's a pretty simple criterion for inclusiveness.

irrelevant. The point is there is no one true source of information and I noticed you ignored the real meat of that argument (as usual), that the particular "prophecies" I mentioned were created out of translation errors.

Okay but since when does epileptic seizures lead to the ability to perform miracles? Note the sentiment of the crowd toward Jesus as it relates to the synergy between his words and actions...

I pointed out that the gospels were written long after anyone could verify these "witnesses". THey were NOT written by the namesakes they were named after, the authors are anonymous, with the exception of MAYBE John.

"All the people were amazed and said to each other, "What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out."

All the people were amazed at the Milk Miracle too, so what?

[Questatement]

Quote by: ItsDarts BORN 25 to 30 years AFTER Christs death, anything he wrote was hearsay regarding the existence of Jesus. Not a first had witness. How many years after Jesus' death was the article you cite (without agenda ridden links again) written? 40, 50, 70 years later? Its all hearsay. Its like you writing about Allah, you could write what you know about him from third party sources, that doesn't make Allah truth. Again, persecution is NOT evidence of a god, its evidence of stupid people suffering for nothing. If you want to argue persecution as evidence of a god, then I think the muslims have Jesus worshipers beat by a mile.

We're talking about 68-70 AD, remember... Nero's persecution? Do try to stay on track please. Tacitus would have been a teenager which, in that time and culture, would have been an adult for all practical purposes.

Quote by: ItsDarts I predict that the WTC will crumble after being hit by airplanes. If I write that down on some piece of papyrus, without dating it, and someone finds it 30 years later, and decided to start a religion based on that "prophecy", there is no way you could refute that as a prophecy. To make it even more authentic, I can write that "prophecy" down on a piece of papyrus made many years before the WTC collapsed, then when someone went to "Date" it, they could see that it was written "before" it happened. Charlatans date all the way back to as far as recorded history.

So the writers of the Gospels did and did not record the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesies because they believed and did not believe that it would help their goal of starting a religious movement. Gotcha.

Quote by: ItsDarts I pointed out that the gospels were written long after anyone could verify these "witnesses". THey were NOT written by the namesakes they were named after, the authors are anonymous, with the exception of MAYBE John.

Keep telling yourself this enough times and maybe Jesus won't exist anymore.