Kioto,

First of all, my point was not what things add up to 4, it is that 2 and 2 equal 4. I don't care what else equals 4, just that the value of 2 remains static, despite whether it is convenient or not. Just because 2+2=4, and 4+0=4, does not mean that 2=4. Just because they add up to the same thing does not make them equal.

You're also wrong on a few points. If you listen again to the movie, they specifically state that the Second Law of Thermodynamics PROVES the existance of an intelligent design, and thus a creator. They say this in one sentence. The argument they use is that, since the universe is winding DOWN (to perfect entropy), at some point it must have been fully wound up. Therefore, SOMEONE had to wind it up. What I was trying to prove is that you can't use that Second Law of TD in that way.

Oh, and on the end of time. The movie specifically states the Bible referring to the universe as Finite. It says so in so many words.

And yes, the Bible does use the "end of humanity" as reference to the end of time. But more importantly, it does say that those who serve God will have eternal life, and will live with God in eternity. Eternity = Infinity. Infinity = Not Finite. If the Universe is NOT FINITE, then it is cannot tend towards Entropy. Therefore, the Second Law of TD cannot be used as an argument here.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND. I am NOT trying to disprove the existance of God. I just do not like seeing laws of Science misused and misstated. When I have concrete proof of something, I believe it. I'm just here to say that they cannot logically make the argument they were making.

_________________

*RNG75* WAR42 NIN37 SAM30 SMN19 BLM18 WHM14
DYNAMIS - XARCABARD INTERLOPER x 2
Windurst Rank 10 ~ San d'Oria Rank 1 ~ *Bastok Rank 6*
Zilart: Complete ~ CoP: Complete

One of the most well-written explanations of the "If we can't explain it, something mystical must be the cause" way of thinking, courtesy of the Digital Biota Conference and Douglas Adams:

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Note, please, that I am not linking this to prove anything. Just that I tend to agree with Adams' way of thinking. Honestly, I always laugh when I read his works, just because the way he words things is so... Well, simply, it's funny.

Discussions like these can always use a spot of levity thrown in.

_________________

*RNG75* WAR42 NIN37 SAM30 SMN19 BLM18 WHM14
DYNAMIS - XARCABARD INTERLOPER x 2
Windurst Rank 10 ~ San d'Oria Rank 1 ~ *Bastok Rank 6*
Zilart: Complete ~ CoP: Complete

I'm at work right now and i cant get too munch into a long post.

But from what i have been reading and anilyzing, i'm starting to see
a more in-depth look at what Thermodynamics is composed and said
to be as a theory. And how Entropy actually works.

Right now, compared of how much information there is, i still have
very little or no knowledge about this subject, but from what i read,
i can see that details were left out in the movie that should have been
said to make their statement true. Which in that case would make this
peticular allegation a false one. I have to agree with Aalan on the fact
that this subject has been used incorrecly, specially when they said
the 2nd law proves a creator. There are still things involved in
thermodynamic that still arent able to be experimented, and thus
only making thermodynamics a Theory. With time (if ever) scientists
might be able to create the exact conditions and variable to make
the exact inviroment to test whether its a true theory or not.

If the theory is correct or not is something we might not be even close
to finding out. Therefore what they say in the Movie is not entirely true
nor entirely false. Still should not be used since its somewhat a make-believe
and therefore not true.

Dont hate.

_________________

Aalan that was a great read. His named sounded so familiar, and it hit me when I clicked one of the links. He's the genius behind, and Im sure you know, The Hitchikers guide to the galaxy. So yeah that kinda explained where he came up with some of the stuff in that speech.

"If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have in your hands is a non-working cat." lol

_________________
Karma.

Bacterial flaggelum do not function as a rotorary motor, they function as a type 3 secretion system. Thus, any microbioologists correct me here, flaggelic movement is a result of motion and not the cause.

Entropy is simply a theory, introduction of principles of "order" and "chaos(disorder)" are subjective. Recent studies of gravitational forces as related to sub atomic particals seem to almost point to extropic behaviour.

Spotnanious generation of life was shown to be a silly concept, no intellectually honest scientist would say it occurs.

The assumption that life originated on our planet is a very large assumption. Many exterestial microbes are introduced into our atmosphere via various phenomia.

*EDIT* - The point above being that chemical creation of life can easily take place on other planets where the atmospheres contain none of the problem elements for said recaction to occur. The assumption that all other planets not earth like can not support life is again, a large step to take. Just because we lack the technology to go find out right this very moment hardly predicates acceptance of untestable theories.

Homogeneity is not practiced by naturally occuring events. Stating that a heterogenious collection of similar items is evidence of planned creation is an enormous leap.

Evolution is a process of propagation of successfull genetic code, which due to drift varies generation by generation. A lack of evidence of "intermediate" states is not conclusive proof that those states never existed. If drift, ergo a 'mutation', resulted in only death and disease no life would exist as all offspring have drifted slightly from their parents. I believe the video stated that children were different from both the parents, but earlier stated that drift only results in bad things. See, gene therapy.

The second law of thermodynamics demands that higher energy systems can only radiate energy to a lower energy system. Acheving an equilibrium means that each system exchanges equal proportions of energy such that the energies of the systems are equivalent. An inifinate system could never acheive such a state as any quantification of energy is only at best an incredibly wrong approximation of the amount of energy present within such a system.

Matter = energy (e=mc^2)

Big bang is still a theory and is regarded as such.

Stating that because no proof exists then it must be "suchandsuch" is an agregious assumption. As no proof exists, then the assumption of "suchandsuch" has no proof either.

Peanut butter can not evolve, it is inanimate. If such were the case, pet rocks would rule the world.

Results of explosions observed over a few years can not be compared to the results of explosions with billions of years between contexts. This is an incredulious logical fallicy.

Planetery satellites need not be formed from the "same" material of their oribtees. Some are foriegn bodies.

Assuming that stars burning up is evidence of a winding down of the universe is another huge leap, observed evidence suggests nearby galaxies are accelerating on their respective paths. The 'death' of a star is not and end, but simply a distribution of matter/energy.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes, this leaves room for a 'creator' but without a testable hyposthesis can not qualify as a theory, which is a requirement.

Irreducable complexity has been largely shown to be a myopic point of view, see above comment about evidence.

When a star dies, it turns into a black hole, correct? How does it not wind down a universe then?

nah you're wrong about that.... each time a star dies a tarutaru is born

_________________

everytime you masterbate, god kills a star.

masturbation = more tarus.. no wonder there's so damn many.

_________________

When a star dies there are a few options.

Red dwarf,
white dwarf,
black hole,
supernova

Only the black hole can be remotely seen as a vacuum of matter and energy. However, black holes radiate very long wave rays. Meaning, matter and energy are 'digested' in a fashion and then sent back out as very simple energy. From an information perspective, they act sort of like an eraser of history.

All other forms distribute stellar matter.

Nah, only the type A, the biggest one form black hole.

_________________



Main: War75/Sam63/Blm71/Rng45
Sub: Nin37/Thf37/Whm37/Mnk30
Three nation: Done Zilart: Done CoP: Done

i jes took my final on wednsday for earth and space. all of this star stuff was on it and i already forgot all of it ...

conclution: school after the 8th grade is pointless

how about this we agree that god made everything and then everything evolved into what it is now ^^ see now everyone is happy

_________________

JOINING OF SIX!

I agree with a previous poster in that perhaps we are not meant to know. To prove or disprove the presence of a "god" one would have to understand the whole of existance, and upon doing so there would be a loud scream, and impending doom. It is said that when noticing the whole of time & space then your perspective insignificance to it that the result is worse than, well anything outside of the total perspective vortex itself. Which, ironically, was said to be powered by nothing more than a peice of fairy cake. This is due to some arguement between the creator and his wife. Gargravarr is much better at explaining it that I could be, but I hear he is in divorce battles with his body over the matter of work vs. fun. This is all moot though when in truth the only question that matters is "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" I believe this as I am not one to contradict the findings of a crudely constructed scrabble board.

exactly what i think, god made monkeys > we evolve from monkeys

Hawking said that spontaneous generation is known to occur and accounts for life in the universe on "Alien Planet". I guess when a luminary in the field of physics states something that has been disproven over and over, the world is coming to an end :-( (Desperation to disprove the existence of God I suppose.....of course, if things were appearing out of nowhere, I would think that that would actually add credence to the God theory )

The problem we run into is that each theory proven or disproven will be used on either side until we either have a "god" come down and say "Hey, I'm here jackass" or the juniour science kit that started this whole mess. What I honestly want to find is a god who believes in evolution "Yea, I made the ball of matter but you're just a run of the numbers". Then again I am a sucker for irony. Also I have accepted that to each their own. Due to the fact I know if it was scientifically proven that "god" had nothing to do with our evolution it would simply shift a subject. I wonder what happened to just waiting until you die to get it figured out. Did we get so scared of our own mortality that we have to know if there is a god or an afterlife? Personally I shutter to think what it would be like if we had no god in our society, after all what would you do if there were no end consequences? Maybe it's not in us to logically know the truth, maybe we spend so much time dwelling on it we forget to enjoy life, maybe it's more pertinant to worry about where we're going rather than where we've been, maybe I've had too many shots of jack, and maybe you just wasted a good 2 min reading this just to see I'm going to end this horrid run-on sentence with "BOOBIES"

I have read plenty of Hawking and do not remember anything in regards to spontanious generation of life. Perhaps what was stated was a poor approximation or out of context, but "poof" there is life is not his style. I can not remember any of his works ever revolving around things suddenly being without cause so that statement is very out of character.

Just stumbled onto this thread...sorry, Kioto, the video was a joke. "Scientists" are comparing the BIG BANG to their personal observations on "explosions", which then features some house exploding or something. High energy physics easily explains all the early interactions of the elementary particles, and the eventual formation of atoms, molecules, stars, and galaxies, due to that wonderful attractive force known as gravity. And OMFG, the peanut butter? I was cracking up. Peanut butter is a combination of several types of molecules and atoms, not in any way arranged into cellular formations and thus completely incapable of forming life. And yet the video DIRECTLY states that is INCONTROVERTIBLE proof that evolution cannot exist. The first cells and DNA strucutres were the result of natural chemical reactions in the deadly "chemical soup", which is OBVIOUSLY deadly for current humans to be in, but not our evolutionary forebears. Experiments in controlled environments have created similar results, and from those FIRST CELLS, evolution began.

There's a reason why essentially every intelligent person on the planet believes in evolution. Because it's true. Just TRY finding a physicist who fully understands particle reactions and modern science who believes in creationism. I believe in God, and I believe he made the laws of the universe as they are. These laws govern everything, and through these natural laws did life form. This video is attempting to literally lower the intelligence of the general public, and to take several steps backward in the pursuit of truth.

Really who cares.... just another topic to make people get mad and argue about. Olny thing that matters is what you want to beleave... ok this what ever it is. Like two religions bashing each other and guess what at this point knowone knows whos right so it is pointless to argue right?

If that made any sence then ok if not too bad, go cry to you mommy....

_________________
**Life is a game,it's ment to be played**

RNG/NIN║RNG/NIN(Future Goal)║NIN/WAR(Future Goal)

I know, I was suprised myself...but anyone who saw that is sure to remember that odd statement.[/b]

Have you not seen the probabilities of the necessarily SUPER-precise arrangement of amino acids and proteins essential to the emergence of even one cell? It is so highly unlikely as to be regarded impossible unless given infinity, which this universe has not had. Also, controlled experiments using atmospheres UNLIKE the early earth's have show the emergence of amino acids is indeed possible. However, if those acids were able to somehow arrange themselves and form a cell, the cell wouldn't last one second in such an enviroment. The enviroment was not conducive to life in any form, therefore life originating in such an enviroment would be impossible.

Oh? Then I suppose you haven't read "The Case for a Creator" which lists many scientists who are experts in their fields yet disagree with the current theory.

What's the definition of "expert"? No, I've never heard of "The Case for a Creator". And if it lists a few scientists, wonderful. For every one of them, there are thousands of others who know better.

Perhaps we don't understand fully all the early mechanisms that led to the formation of the first cellular life, though we have some good guesses. And neither do I proclaim to be an expert on the subject. I'm simply stating that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, and moreover, that the video in question was a friggin' joke. 'Nuff said.

(Peanut butter. ROFL.)

Personally, I don't think science will ever have a feasible explanation for our origins. There are other dimensions outside our own, and, as science can only deal with the material dimension, it will be the philosophers and theologians who take precedence over the scientists in the future IMO.