|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Applying Ocam's Razor To BB vs Biblical ID Creationism and EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
First law of thermodynamics:
quote: BS writes:
The 1LoT does not mention the universe nor how long it has existed.
1. According to 1LoT, the Universe is infinite in time, including it's constant unchanging amount of energy. BS writes:
1LoT does not mention anything about infinite amounts of energy.
2. According to Genesis one and the Biblical record, the infinite Biblical god, Jehovah who resides in the cosmos of the Universe resides in an infinite time Universe, having infinite stable amount of energy, as per 1LoT, which eminates from him, ever changing form. BS writes:
Crystals. 3. As is most commonly (I say, commonly) observed, physically, chaos does not spontaniously progress into order by natural means void of ID. Barns do not emerge from forests to structures, books, void of ID. Chaotic iron ore does not emerge naturally into forged tools, etcYou've been told this before. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
BS writes:
Which 1LoT does not mention.
The closed infinite time and space system is one of unbounded space, space having no visible properties capable of bounding space. Thus it has no surroundings. BS writes:
Wrong. Again, Ocam's Razor would apply, due to the fact that no space bounds can be physically observed or falsified.As with the 1LoT, you have intentionally misrepresented Occam's Razor. You are simply wishing away any facts that contradict your view of the world. By your logic: the universe was created by god - because it is a simpler explanation than the Big Bang Theory.But also by your logic: this forum was created by god - because it is a simpler explanation than Percy writing it in php. And also by your logic: god took a shit in my toilet - because it is a simpler explanation than food getting consumed and digested and then defecated by me. I also note that you still can't bring yourself to address your stupid comments about chaotic systems never creating order.That probably means that we will have to continue saying "Crystals!" to you. Jeez. Even a goldfish can learn quicker than you. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
BS writes:
Spheres are 2D? There you go again, tipically applying a 2D model to a 3D system. There are a lot of sportsmen who would disagree with you... Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
But I wouldn't give him credit. I'd give Buzsaw most of the credit on this question. It is only the surface of the sphere that is relevant, and that surface is a 2D space. He is only able to say that CF's sphere is 2D by not understanding CF's example.Surely that means that Buz is talking about a 3D sphere - like a football? NoNukes writes:
"Refused to note" or "fails to understand"? Buzsaw fails to get full credit because he refused to note that a 2 sphere is simply an analogy for the topology of the universe.I am going with the latter. He still denies the existence of crystals, ffs! {abe}I have just read your edit, and I thank you for your best wishes...We will need them! Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I also note that you still can't bring yourself to address your stupid comments about chaotic systems never creating order.
That probably means that we will have to continue saying "Crystals!" to you. CRYSTALS!! Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
So - the universe was not created. No, Panda. Infinite systems are never created.Is that what you meant to say? Buzsaw writes:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The energy in the Universe changes forms as work is applied, Wonderfully designed complex closed systems within it are created and/or destroyed by the intelligent designer of them, the working designer being the Biblical god, Jehovah, the majestic manager of the Universe. And no, neither 1LoT nor Occam's Razor mentions an intelligent designer. Well, we seemed to have moved away from your first post.So, in an attempt to move us back: CRYSTALS!!! Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
BS writes:
Those are weasel words. Go back and read carefully. You will note that I emphasied BY AND LARGE quote: As crashfrog has said, you are just sweeping all the masses of counter-evidence 'under the rug' by using ambiguous terms; hoping no one will notice.
CRYSTALS!!!Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
BS writes:
I am not trolling. Panda, stop trolling my thread. Either poop or get off the pot. And there is more than enough poop from you - I don't need to contribute more. Perhaps you could try to support your claims?Try again: BS writes:
Those (i.e. "BY AND LARGE") are weasel words. Go back and read carefully. You will note that I emphasied BY AND LARGE quote: As crashfrog has said, you are just sweeping all the masses of counter-evidence 'under the rug' by using ambiguous terms; hoping no one will notice. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
BS writes:
No it wouldn't.
O.R. would say that if the Jews... BS writes:
No it wouldn't.
O.R. would say that predictions BS writes:
Even if you had successfully understood and applied OR, it's failure would not add support to the bible. Conclusion: This failure of O.R. would be supportive (I say "supportive") to Biblical ID creationism. If I came home and saw an empty pizza box and my dog, OR would tell me to ignore extra possible (but unevidenced and unnecessary) entities (e.g. pizza-eating aliens).But if it turns out that a burglar ate my pizza, "This failure of O.R." would not "be supportive" to a burglar eating my pizza. It would be 'evidence' (e.g. finger-prints) that would "be supportive" of a burglar eating my pizza. And we are back to using that word you don't understand... Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.CRYSTALS!!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024