tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31074669.post666453778569840313..comments2023-06-27T11:07:53.458-04:00Comments on <img src=http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/Celitmarifia/AW.jpg>: Dear Darwinists and Atheists:Arachnerahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08007801920296322694noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31074669.post-76862837150047414962007-08-15T10:54:00.000-04:002007-08-15T10:54:00.000-04:00Mr. Ridlon:You say "There was never any positive e...Mr. Ridlon:<BR/>You say "There was never any positive evidence for an 'intelligent designer'" Well, how do you respond to this:<BR/><BR/>The earth is tilted at precisely the correct angle and placed at precisely the correct distance from the sun to have life. How can chance do that?<BR/><BR/>I reply: So no other angles or positions relative to the sun would allow for any life at all? That is absurd to the highest degree. What do you base this on? Remember you say later: “I am neither much of a scientist nor a mathematician”.<BR/><BR/>You said: “One billion monkeys on constantly working typewriters would have to work hundreds or even thousands of years before it is even probable for one to type Genesis 1:1, a simple little verse that goes "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And even then, they likely wouldn't do it. Darwin was bad at mathematics. That's why he produced a theory that is ridiculous mathematically.”<BR/><BR/>In writing this you have fallen for the biggest creationist trick in the book; and demonstrated GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) math. Don’t feel embarrassed, you are in good company. The eminent astronomer Fred Hoyle misunderstood the accumulative aspect of natural selection and treated evolution like a perfect hand in bridge. Richard Dawkins simulated the ‘monkey-typewriter’ bit with a version of natural selection and found that a “ME THINKS I AM A WEASAL” could be formed in (if memory serves me) 60 tried not the 26^18 suggested by the product of each random trial. <BR/><BR/>You said: “The Bible was written over about 600 years and by several different authors and yet is not contradictory of itself. It also contains valid scientific and historical facts that were discovered by men only many years later. If you insist that the Bible is all myths that were written down after those facts were discovered, well, all I can say is knock yourself out trying to rewrite history, which claims that the Bible has existed for all those years.”<BR/><BR/>I reply: The Bible most certainly contradicts itself in many places, it is laughable that you would make this statement. The historicity of the Bible is rejected by theologians. Who cares if cities are located as described in the Bible? The core claims, including the inspiration for writing it cannot be corroborated with evidence. <BR/><BR/>You said: “Speaking of history and science, neither Darwinism nor creation are provable--if you use the scientific method. In order to be tested by the scientific method, the condition must be repeatable. History has a whole different system for proof. For example, if someone asked you to testify that Jane Doe committed her crime on date, witness is the way you'll go about proving it. Since evolution is not repeatable (as a one way process) it would have to be proved by witness, and it hasn't.”<BR/><BR/>I reply: We don’t “prove” things in science, we always allow new evidence to falsify a claim. Creation is not a valid model because nature refutes the Biblical account. When you say, “In order to be tested by the scientific method, the condition must be repeatable” you suggest that we cannot determine past events, which is the entire basis of geology, astronomy and cosmology as well as evolutionary biology. <BR/><BR/>You said: “On the subject of one way processes, it's no wonder you're ignoring the fact that the second law of thermodynamics stands as a huge obstacle in Darwinism, since you evidentially are a biologist, rather than a physicist. Oh yes, entropy stands smack dab in your way. Entropy increases and the amount of usable energy declines. The universe is running down rather than getting more orderly as you evolutionists believe.”<BR/><BR/>I reply: “We decrease our entropy by consuming food which ultimately derived from the conversion of photonic energy to chemical energy by plants. We in turn take macromolecules and oxygen and convert this into CO2 and water, the products have higher entropy than the reactants, so the net entropy of the surroundings increases, and doesn’t violate the second law. If life violated the second law, we wouldn’t be here. But then again, you admit that you don’t know much science or math. <BR/><BR/>You said: “Good luck on seeing the truth!”<BR/><BR/>I reply: Back at you.Clostridiophilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242245098663362751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31074669.post-41479409933999586362007-05-18T16:41:00.000-04:002007-05-18T16:41:00.000-04:00Does your keeper know you are loose?Does your keeper know you are loose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com