It's been a while since we had some exchanges on the fascinating topic of Creation-vs-Evolution. A key element of the whole debate is the second law of thermodynamics, used by creationists and evolutionists to defend their respective position. For your own enjoyment, I bring both sides of the story here:
Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html
Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into meaningless gibberish. The reader should refer to Chapter III of "Scientific Creationism," edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research for specific details. This chapter can be summed up as follows.
Gelin, don't you think that everything should be created somehow?
There should be a catalyst? It doesn't have to be by someone, perhaps something?
Can someone create the earth, not the Universe? Can someone create the earth but not what is inside it? Maybe, pure luck!
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:03 pm
Leonel, what are you saying? I do not understand...
I was watching Larry King last night where there was a debate on the issue of Intelligent Design. That exchange with author and spiritual advisor Deepak Chopra caught my attention:
...And they say, who designed the creator? If you think of the creator in human terms, which is the human imagination, then you're in trouble. But you know, in quantum physics, they refer to this field of infinite possibilities as acausal, which means without cause, nonlocal, beyond space time, infinitely correlated inter-relatedness, and when you start to understand that the very fundamental levels of nature are acausal, they are beyond time, they're without -- they transcend time, then you can have a different idea of the creator.
KING: We'll pick right up on this right after these words.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... kl.01.html
Leonel, I guess even in non-religious circles the question of ultimate origin has to be perceived with a different idea, context or imagination. The visible came from the invisible, and the creator must be perceived outside the creation. Pffft...
Gelin, I have problem with the keyword "CREATOR".
And anyone can try wherever suits him/her (creationist or evolutionist).
This is very complex. It would take a lifetime to debate this subject.
One can upset the norms if he/she can come with other theory or Scientific proof that the Law of Relativity is nothing but fiction. Or Rearranging the elements of the Periodic Table. For Instance, Hydrogen atomic mass is 4 grams?
TwOp travay, let's keep it the way it is.
Male, hey Guy, I think this is Metaphysic...