Titan ReloadingWidenersRepackboxADvertise here
MidSouth Shooters SupplyRotoMetals2Inline FabricationLee Precision

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213
Results 241 to 258 of 258

Thread: Perspective from athiests/agnostics

  1. #241
    Boolit Mold
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Minnrsota
    Posts
    5
    First off religion is a man made thing. Each of us has to decide what we will or will not do with Jesus. Jesus ministered against religion more then any other person who has ever lived. Each of us chooses where We will send our soul for eternity. We also need to understand that Satan as a fallen angel hates us as much as it hates God. Satan will do anything to keep us from Jesus. We see all the evil in the world but we as human beings invited that evil into the world. Jesus told us clearly no one is without sin. We all fall short of the Glory of God. Jesus also tells us plainly we either trust and believe in Him or we don't. We choose where we will spend eternity. No ever said life would be easy if we trust in Jesus. By looking at the servants of Jesus we see that we as servants are under constant attack from Satan, it's servants and even other people. If we have doubts about the times we live in we can pray, read the Bible and it becomes clear we are closer to the end then to the beginning. No one is promised their next breath so we need to be ready for the moment our souls are required of us. If we are saved we should trust in Jesus no matter what comes against us. If we do not believe in Jesus we also choose our fate. No one is so bad that Jesus can not forgive them and save them if we ask. God bless you all in your choice for eternity.

  2. #242
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    292
    Organized religion is about two things and that is power and controlling people. The basic premise is to invent something that cant be seen, felt, or heard and then make up rules how you should obey it. When something bad happens then its...…..oh well, free will and all, etc.
    There is NO God that would sit idly by and watch people get massacred in the name of holy wars, the holocaust, cancer in children, pedophiles in the clergy, etc. If there is a God that allows these things to continue then what type of God is there?

    Once in awhile someone will be medically "cured" by a miracle. Total hogwash. You want to show me a miracle? Show me someone who grew back a finger, hand, arm, foot, etc.

    I have observed there are two types of people attracted to religion. The first are children who are forced to believe what their parents believe. The second are aging people who desperately want to cling to the notion there is everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven. Far more people would come out of shadows and admit they did not believe if their circle of friends would not blackball them. I have heard firsthand from friends that go to church and tell people they believe in God so their own business is not blackballed. And others who say they really don't believe, but just in case they are wrong they act like they do so they get everlasting life.

  3. #243
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    1,792
    Quote Originally Posted by AK Caster View Post
    .... others who say they really don't believe, but just in case they are wrong they act like they do so they get everlasting life.
    "Act like" they believe? Boy, are they going to be disappointed!

  4. #244
    Boolit Buddy




    DeputyDog25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Helmville, MT
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    Why does it seem strange?
    Within the human race there are hundreds or maybe millions of gods. It is a guaranteed fact that if you are a believer in a single god (monotheism) you do not believe in any of the rest of them. An atheist simply believes in one less god than you. So to most of the universe your one god belief means you are an atheist to all gods except one.
    However strange and goofy you think atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus,etc. are you have to know that they think your beliefs are just as unusual. Even more telling is the fact that most of you believers only adopt the faith of your parents and culture. That is not a real logical and error free process.
    There is only ONE true GOD, the God of the universe, the creator of everything, the alpha and omega, the father of Jesus Christ (by the way, he is the only person to ever die and rise again). God and His word has withstood thousands of years of doubters such as yourself and no matter how hard you try you won’t be the first person in history to try and convince anyone that it is all a farce. I pray that you stop the analytics and accept the reality that God loves you, Christ died for you, and Heaven and Hell are real. One last thing, if you read the book of Revelation you’ll see that what you and every other non-believer has been trying to do for thousands of years; namely try and prove that God is not real was prophesied in Revelation.
    Last edited by DeputyDog25; 10-20-2019 at 06:41 PM.
    Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  5. #245
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,295
    Sorry no
    You obviously did not read and comprehend what I said. All you did was repeat the programming that you have been receiving since your were a little kid.
    There are millions of gods that humans believe in. Your god is one among many. For me your thoughts, beliefs and god tales are meaningless and irrelevant. Your tale of the holy trinity is one of the most unbelievable yarns ever told. Why would you ever believe your bible prophesy? Anyone can write book and claim anything. After all you are trying to attribute something supernatural to the writing of goat herders and other unknowns. The story of Christ was written several hundred years after he died so you know how accurate that is. We cannot even define who our own ancestors were 6 generations back. What makes you think that 2000 year old tale is the slightest bit accurate. It is no more accurate than the English tale of King Arthur. They cannot even prove King Arthur really existed and you cannot prove your story either. There is zero instance of anything outside of your bible that can provide the slightest bit of scientific or physical proof of the supernatural tales in your bible. Not one bit of it is observable today. Today there are 7.7 billion people on this earth and not a single one will rise from the dead or ascend to heaven.
    I suppose your belief in your bible is so strong that if it told you to play in front of a train you would dance on the rails at the locomotive turns you into a grease spot. So confess. Would you play in front of a train if your bible told you to? I think you will say you will yet deep down inside you really wouldn't since you know that you would be killed. You are only going to believe something that you are going to profit from. And you believe you will gain an eternity in heaven. Without that bit of self serving greed you would not bother with believing such a far fetched fantasy.
    Stick around another ten thousand years. The march of science will continue to discover the secrets of the universe. The believers of your faith will not be able to offer anything new. Not now and not ever. Your bible did not predict the existence of the New World and it will not predict what happens tomorrow either.


    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyDog25 View Post
    There is only ONE true GOD, the God of the universe, the creator of everything, the alpha and omega, the father of Jesus Christ (by the way, he is the only person to ever die and rise again). God and His word has withstood thousands of years of doubters such as yourself and no matter how hard you try you wonít be the first person in history to try and convince anyone that it is all a farce. I pray that you stop the analytics and accept the reality that God loves you, Christ died for you, and Heaven and Hell are real. One last thing, if you read the book of Revelation youíll see that what you and every other non-believer has been trying to do for thousands of years; namely try and prove that God is not real was prophesied in Revelation.
    Last edited by EDG; 10-20-2019 at 10:16 PM.
    EDG

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by EDG View Post
    Sorry no
    You obviously did not read and comprehend what I said. All you did was repeat the programming that you have been receiving since your were a little kid.
    There are millions of gods that humans believe in. Your god is one among many. For me your thoughts, beliefs and god tales are meaningless and irrelevant. Your tale of the holy trinity is one of the most unbelievable yarns ever told. Why would you ever believe your bible prophesy? Anyone can write book and claim anything. After all you are trying to attribute something supernatural to the writing of goat herders and other unknowns. The story of Christ was written several hundred years after he died so you know how accurate that is. We cannot even define who our own ancestors were 6 generations back. What makes you think that 2000 year old tale is the slightest bit accurate. It is no more accurate than the English tale of King Arthur. They cannot even prove King Arthur really existed and you cannot prove your story either. There is zero instance of anything outside of your bible that can provide the slightest bit of scientific or physical proof of the supernatural tales in your bible. Not one bit of it is observable today. Today there are 7.7 billion people on this earth and not a single one will rise from the dead or ascend to heaven.
    I suppose your belief in your bible is so strong that if it told you to play in front of a train you would dance on the rails at the locomotive turns you into a grease spot. So confess. Would you play in front of a train if your bible told you to? I think you will say you will yet deep down inside you really wouldn't since you know that you would be killed. You are only going to believe something that you are going to profit from. And you believe you will gain an eternity in heaven. Without that bit of self serving greed you would not bother with believing such a far fetched fantasy.
    Stick around another ten thousand years. The march of science will continue to discover the secrets of the universe. The believers of your faith will not be able to offer anything new. Not now and not ever. Your bible did not predict the existence of the New World and it will not predict what happens tomorrow either.
    EDG,
    Actually there IS evidence beyond the Bible. The problem is you bought into a protestant fallacy called sola scriptura, where the only evidence they will accept is the Bible. Thus much of your exposure is the Bible alone.

    But there is an ancient historian named Josephus Flavius who mentions Christ and christians. Plus there are a ton of writings by authors of the second century AD. That's early enough that those authors and those who first read the writings personally knew the apostles.

    On top of that there is the fact that judaism has survived so many enslavements. I challenge you to find ONE other religion that has survived through as many enslavements as that of Judaism. That in itself is strong evidence that there just might be something of the truth in the Jewish belief system.

    As for believing in the faith of your parents vs believing in a default atheism, the former is far more logical and sound. One way to determine truth is to consider the motivations of those who are telling it to you. Parents are generally your best source they don't stand to gain much from lying to you.

    Default atheism commits a major logical fallacy. When trying to find an explanation that best capture the truth, you have to examine ALL the possible explanations and pick the one that best explains the evidence. You don't have to find one that perfectly explains all the evidence (in fact those kind of explanation often don't exist). Default atheism puts all OTHER beliefs systems under scrutiny and having found fault with all of them (of course) the person defaults to atheism. But they never put atheism under the same scrutiny as the rest.

    Thus the I-believe-in-one-less-god atheism is one of the worst reasons to be an atheist.

  7. #247
    Boolit Buddy




    DeputyDog25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Helmville, MT
    Posts
    417
    Good science has proven there is a Creator
    The second law of thermodynamics , eliminates evolution !
    There are 2 theories on how we got here , evolution and creation ,
    when you disprove one , you prove the other .
    Oh , what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics , say ?
    Everything , not most things , not some things , but everything goes from organization into chaos , why does that matter ?
    Because , if you carefuly look at evolution , you will see that it says , everything goes from chaos into organization !

    The Empty Tomb

    First, the evidence indicates that Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on Sunday morning. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "by far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb." And he lists twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more that he neglected to mention. According to the New Testament critic D. H. Van Daalen, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds. Those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."

    Jesus' Appearances after His Death

    Secondly, the evidence indicates that on separate occasions, different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the late Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago, "The more we investigate the traditions with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear on which they are based." These appearances were bodily and physical and were witnessed not only by believers, but also by skeptics, unbelievers, and even enemies.

    The Origin of the Christian Faith

    Thirdly, the very origin of the Christian faith implies the reality of the resurrection. We all know that Christianity sprang into being in the middle of the first century. Where did it come from? Why did it arise? Well, all scholars agree that Christianity came into being because the original disciples believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead, and they proclaimed this message everywhere that they went. But where in the world did they come up with that outlandish belief?

    If you deny that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then you've got to explain the origin of the disciples' belief either in terms of Jewish influences or Christian influences. Obviously, it couldn't have come from Christian influences for the simple reason that there wasn't any Christianity yet! But neither can it be explained from the side of Jewish influences because the Jewish concept of resurrection was radically different than Jesus' resurrection. As the reknowned New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias puts it, "Nowhere does one find in the literature [of ancient Judaism] anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus." The most plausible explanation of the origin of the disciples' belief, therefore, is that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

    Attempts to explain away these three great facts, like "the disciples stole the body," or "Jesus wasn't really dead," have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic explanation of these facts. And therefore it seems to me that the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.

    The Bible Is Unique in Content
    First, compared to other “holy books,” the Bible is unique in many respects. Not only was it composed by at least 40 writers, on multiple continents, over a span of 1,500 years, but it is not what we would expect to find were it “made up.” The Bible also includes major moral failings of its heroes, yet most writings of other religions tend to whitewash the flaws of their heroes.

    Moreover, the Bible’s theme is quite unlike those found in other religions. Manmade religions teach that a man can earn salvation through various practices and good works. The Bible explains that man is sinful, deserving of God’s judgment, and that no amount of good works could ever remove our guilt. God Himself solves our problem by becoming a man and taking our punishment upon Himself. Manmade religions are about what man can do for his god, but the Bible is about what God has already done for man.

    The Bible Is Confirmed by Archaeology
    Second, the Bible accurately reveals historical people, events, and places. Consider the following items described in our article, “Archaeological Finds.”

    Discovered in Israel, the Tel Dan Stele has been dated to the ninth century BC and mentions the “House of David,” shattering the long-held view of many skeptics that David was a mythical person.
    The Mesha Stele describes Moab’s subjection under Omri, the king of Israel. It also references the personal name of the God of the Bible (Yahweh), and very likely contains a reference to the “House of David” (this is debated due to an unreadable letter).
    The Pilate stone provides archaeological evidence for the existence of the man who sentenced Jesus to death on the Cross. Skeptics frequently denied his existence until the discovery of this stone, which identifies Pontius Pilate as the Prefect of Judea.1
    Dr. Nelson Glueck was the president of Hebrew Union College and a highly respected archaeologist whose reliance upon the historical accuracy of Scripture led to the discovery of 1,500 ancient sites. Regarding the Bible and archaeology, he stated the following:

    It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries.2
    The distinguished archaeologist Dr. William F. Albright also asserted the accuracy of the Bible’s history.

    Thanks to modern research we now recognize its substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago.3
    Glueck and Albright focused their attention on the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament? Does it enjoy a similar level of confirmation? Actually, perhaps because it is more recent, the evidence consistent with the New Testament is more abundant. Consider the following details in just a single chapter of the Bible that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists:

    The proper location (Amphipolis and Apollonia) of where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (Acts 17:1)
    The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)
    The proper title, “politarchs,” used of the magistrates there (Acts 17:6)
    The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens with favoring east winds of summer sailing (Acts 17:14)
    The abundant presence of images in Athens (Acts 17:16)
    The reference to a synagogue in Athens (Acts 17:17)
    The depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (Acts 17:17)
    The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul, a spermologos (Acts 17:18), as well as the court (areios pagos)
    The proper characterization of the Athenian character (Acts 17:21)
    An altar to an “unknown god” (Acts 17:23)
    The proper reaction of Greek philosophers who denied bodily resurrection (Acts 17:32)
    Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)4
    Remember, all of these accurate details are found in just one chapter. This does not prove every word of Scripture is true, but it reveals that the writer (Luke) had intimate knowledge of the people, customs, and places he wrote about. Also, we have no record of any ancient writer denying the historicity of the people and places described in Scripture, but we do have a number of first- and second-century sources from outside the Bible confirming the existence of Jesus.

    Many more archaeologists could be cited who verify the accuracy of the biblical text. Of course we’ll never find archaeological or paleographic evidence to confirm every person, event, or place described in the Bible. For example, historical research can provide corroborating evidence for the Crucifixion of Jesus under Pontius Pilate (Tacitus mentions these details in Annals), but scientific disciplines cannot confirm that His death on the Cross satisfied God’s wrath against sin. However, the abundance of finds matching Scripture perfectly that have already been found show that the Bible was not just “made up.”5

    THE ABUNDANCE OF FINDS MATCHING SCRIPTURE PERFECTLY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND SHOW THAT THE BIBLE WAS NOT JUST “MADE UP.”
    Compare the Bible’s accuracy with the miserable archaeological record of the Mormon religion. The Mormon “holy books” teach that Native Americans are really Jews who fled Jerusalem, but DNA studies have falsified this claim. Furthermore, despite millions of dollars spent on excavations in the Americas, archaeologists have not uncovered a shred of evidence to support Mormon claims, and the early Americans did not wield scimitars or ride horses and elephants.6

    Scientists from every discipline could be quoted whose work in their respective fields have either persuaded or further convinced them that the Bible is true. But we should not rely primarily on the conclusions of learned men and women of science. While their statements are helpful, we must recognize that they can err and change their minds. So is there anything we can look at to demonstrate the Bible was not just an invention of man? Indeed there is.

    The Bible Is Confirmed Through God’s Challenge to Other Religions
    Throughout Isaiah 40–46, God, speaking through the prophet, repeatedly challenges the false gods to prove themselves. Specifically, He challenges them to tell the future and bring it to pass.

    “Present your case,” says the Lord. “Bring forth your strong reasons,” says the King of Jacob. “Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; let them show the former things, what they were, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods. (Isaiah 41:21–23)
    So here is the test for the other religions of the world. Can they accurately foretell future events? After all, only the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator knows everything that will happen and has the ability to bring it to pass. And God has established His righteous character through this unique ability. In Isaiah 41:26, the Lord asks, “Who has declared from the beginning, that we may know? And former times, that we may say, ‘He is righteous’?”

    Most of the founders of the world’s religions never attempted to tell the future.7 Outside of the Bible, the other “holy books” of the world do not really include prophecies. The vague predictions of Nostradamus and demonstrably false prognostications of Edgar Cayce do not meet the biblical standard of 100 percent accuracy for a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:22).

    Now take a look at what God says about His own ability in this area:

    I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images. Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them. (Isaiah 42:8–9)
    What does prophecy have to do with whether the Bible was “made up”? Mere men cannot accurately tell the future, and yet more than one-fourth of the Bible was prophetic at the time of its writing, indicating that these men were not simply making up what they wrote—their writing was inspired by God. The biblical prophecies contain specific people, times, places, and events, and they are generally straightforward. Most of them were written centuries before the events described, and those that have already been fulfilled came to pass exactly as foretold (some prophecies await future fulfillment).

    Consider just a handful of the hundreds of accurate prophecies recorded in Scripture:

    The Messiah Would Be . . . Prophesied Fulfilled
    Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:25
    Born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1, 6
    Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:15, 49
    Have clothing divided at the Cross Psalm 22:18 John 19:24
    Wounded for our sins Isaiah 53:5 1 Peter 2:24
    Killed for others Daniel 9:26 2 Corinthians 5:21
    Raised from the dead Psalm 16:10 Luke 24:6
    In addition to dozens of prophecies about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Old Testament contains hundreds of detailed prophecies, often to announce judgment upon Israel and the surrounding nations for their disobedience.

    When addressing Messianic prophecies, skeptics often assume that Jesus simply set out to fulfill certain predictions; but if Jesus were merely a man, how would He make sure that He would be born of a virgin in Bethlehem or that He would be raised from the dead?

    Many skeptics also assume these prophecies were written after the fact, but all of the prophecies mentioned in the chart above were written at least 400 years before the events occurred. Even if a person rejects the well-supported traditional dates assigned to the Old Testament books, he still needs to deal with the fact that the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, includes these prophecies and was translated well before Christ’s birth. Furthermore, portions of each of the Old Testament books in the chart were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the great Isaiah Scroll, which is dated to at least a century before Christ’s birth and contains multiple precise prophesies about the Messiah. How could the writers of the Old Testament possibly know what would come to pass with perfect accuracy? There is only one logical answer. God inspired their words; they did not make up what they wrote.

    Conclusion
    The truth is that God has inspired the writing of His Word in the collection of 66 books we call the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). The notion that men just made it up is quite reasonably dispensed by Scripture’s uniqueness, its historical and archaeological accuracy, and its inclusion of fulfilled detailed prophecy. These facts do not necessarily prove that every word of the Bible is accurate, but they do provide verification for many portions of Scripture, demonstrate its divine origin, and give us great confidence that the details not subject to scientific verification are also true. Ultimately, the reason we believe that all Scripture is inspired by God is because the Holy Spirit dwells within us, providing assurance and conviction as we prayerfully read and study the Bible.

    THE BIBLE EXPLAINS THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE WE COULD EVER KNOW.
    Finally, in addition to the divine origin of the text, the Bible explains the most important message we could ever know. As people who have sinned against our perfectly holy Creator, we deserve His judgment, but God sent His Son to die a sacrificial death on the Cross so that we can be forgiven. Three days later, He rose from the dead, demonstrating His power over sin and death and providing the guarantee of eternal life to all who trust in Him (Romans 10:9).

    If you have not already done so, call out to the God who inspired the writing of the Bible. Turn from your sin and ask for His forgiveness.
    Last edited by DeputyDog25; 10-21-2019 at 11:33 AM.
    Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  8. #248
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,098
    Thank you D Dog25!

    The reasons you list, and so many more, IS the reason Christians do not have a blind faith! It's a faith built on proof that God is able to deliver on his promises!

  9. #249
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyDog25 View Post
    Good science has proven there is a Creator
    The second law of thermodynamics , eliminates evolution !
    There are 2 theories on how we got here , evolution and creation ,
    when you disprove one , you prove the other .
    Oh , what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics , say ?
    Everything , not most things , not some things , but everything goes from organization into chaos , why does that matter ?
    …....

    That is not what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says! Where did you learn your Thermodynamics?


    Second Law of Thermodynamics
    The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

    If everything went from order to chaos then you could never make steel from Iron ore or never build a computer.

    Tim
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  10. #250
    Boolit Buddy




    DeputyDog25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Helmville, MT
    Posts
    417
    Uh, excuse me but where did you learn Thermodynamics? Wikipedia? Whatever.

    “If everything went from order to chaos then you could never make steel from Iron ore or never build a computer”.
    Tim


    This is actually a ignorant statement and it’s because you just cut and paste Wikipedia without understanding what it is you are pasting.

    Everything, not some things but everything has a beginning (new) and from that point starts to disintegrate (chaos). This has nothing to do with the production of steel or building a computer, in fact it proves the theory. Steel is formed and from that point, no matter what you do, at some point in time it will disintegrate (chaos), some as a computer, when new it has no issues, no viruses, etc.. but eventually will no longer function at all. (Chaos).
    The second law revisited

    The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature, having profound implications. In essence, it says this:

    The second law - The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.

    One implication of the second law is that heat flows spontaneously from a hotter region to a cooler region, but will not flow spontaneously the other way. This applies to anything that flows: it will naturally flow downhill rather than uphill.

    If you watched a film forwards and backwards, you would almost certainly be able to tell which way was which because of the way things happen. A pendulum will gradually lose energy and come to a stop, but it doesn't pick up energy spontaneously; an ice cube melts to form a puddle, but a puddle never spontaneously transforms itself into an ice cube; a glass falling off a table might shatter when it hits the ground, but the pieces will never spontaneously jump back together to form the glass again. Many processes are irreversible, and any irreversible process increases the level of disorder. One of the most important implications of the second law is that it indicates which way time goes - time naturally flows in a way that increases disorder.

    The second law also predicts the end of the universe: it implies that the universe will end in a "heat death" in which everything is at the same temperature. This is the ultimate level of disorder; if everything is at the same temperature, no work can be done, and all the energy will end up as the random motion of atoms and molecules.

    Entropy

    A measure of the level of disorder of a system is entropy, represented by S. Although it's difficult to measure the total entropy of a system, it's generally fairly easy to measure changes in entropy. For a thermodynamic system involved in a heat transfer of size Q at a temperature T , a change in entropy can be measured by:



    The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in terms of entropy. If a reversible process occurs, there is no net change in entropy. In an irreversible process, entropy always increases, so the change in entropy is positive. The total entropy of the universe is continually increasing.

    There is a strong connection between probability and entropy. This applies to thermodynamic systems like a gas in a box as well as to tossing coins. If you have four pennies, for example, the likelihood that all four will land heads up is relatively small. It is six times more likely that you'll get two heads and two tails. The two heads - two tails state is the most likely, shows the most disorder, and has the highest entropy. Four heads is less likely, has the most order, and the lowest entropy. If you tossed more coins, it would be even less likely that they'd all land heads up, and even more likely that you'd end up with close to the same number of heads as tails.

    With a gas in a box, the probability that all the gas molecules are in one corner of the box at the same time is very small (for a typical box full of 1020 molecules or more, incredibly small): this is therefore a low entropy state. It is much more likely that the molecules are randomly distributed around the box, and are moving in random directions; this high disorder state is a considerably higher entropy state. The second law doesn't rule out all the molecules ending up in one corner, but it means it's far more likely that the molecules will be randomly distributed, and to move towards a random distribution from an orderly distribution, as opposed to the other way around.


    Quote Originally Posted by dtknowles View Post
    That is not what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says! Where did you learn your Thermodynamics?


    Second Law of Thermodynamics
    The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a (fictive) reversible process. In all processes that occur, including spontaneous processes, the total entropy of the system and its surroundings increases and the process is irreversible in the thermodynamic sense. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

    If everything went from order to chaos then you could never make steel from Iron ore or never build a computer.

    Tim
    Last edited by DeputyDog25; 10-26-2019 at 02:51 PM.
    Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  11. #251
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    2,880
    I learned Thermodynamics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. It was a required course for my Engineering degree.

    You seem to be disregarding the fact that some processes are reversible. Even in nature oxidization can be reversed. Burn wood and release CO2, a near by tree can take that CO2 and reduce it back to Oxygen and new wood. What the second law says it that to do that you will need to get some energy from somewhere as there will be losses. Going from order to chaos is free, going from chaos to order requires effort.

    Do you deny that modern horses evolved from much different prehistoric horses?

    Tim
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  12. #252
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    1,792
    Deputy, your high speed and rational defense of Christianity is excellent. You are an informed and logical man so I ask for your thoughts about something that's been bugging me a long time.

    Scientists say life began in the dawn of time in some kind of super chemical swamp when a few stray molecules got zapped by lightening and they fused together (or something like that). My question is, do they have any justification?

    I mean, IF everything they say is true then wouldn't all original chemistry have been inorganic? Without the chemical effects of some pre-existing micro-level forms of life, how could the original inorganic primordial chemistry have decayed and strangely become an organic soup? I just can't see how the atomic structure of inorganic matter could have, of itself, ever produced the swampy chemicals from which life as we know it could possibly occur.

    I've asked a few degree'd scientific atheist types that question and all I get is a "deer in the headlights" expression and some incoherent fumbling for words, usually followed by their weak clincher; "It took millions of years." I wonder; In science, how many millions of years does it take for impossible things to occur?

    Your thoughts, what am I missing???

  13. #253
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
    Deputy, your high speed and rational defense of Christianity is excellent. You are an informed and logical man so I ask for your thoughts about something that's been bugging me a long time.

    Scientists say life began in the dawn of time in some kind of super chemical swamp when a few stray molecules got zapped by lightening and they fused together (or something like that). My question is, do they have any justification?

    I mean, IF everything they say is true then wouldn't all original chemistry have been inorganic? Without the chemical effects of some pre-existing micro-level forms of life, how could the original inorganic primordial chemistry have decayed and strangely become an organic soup? I just can't see how the atomic structure of inorganic matter could have, of itself, ever produced the swampy chemicals from which life as we know it could possibly occur.

    I've asked a few degree'd scientific atheist types that question and all I get is a "deer in the headlights" expression and some incoherent fumbling for words, usually followed by their weak clincher; "It took millions of years." I wonder; In science, how many millions of years does it take for impossible things to occur?

    Your thoughts, what am I missing???
    It is only a theory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. This article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.

    Tim
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  14. #254
    Boolit Buddy




    DeputyDog25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Helmville, MT
    Posts
    417
    Sir, what you are referring to is the “Miller Experiment “ which occurred in the 50’s where the idea of a “prebiotic soup” is discussed.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I sensed a level of sarcasm in your reply, and also the sense of being lead into a trap.
    My response to you is quite simple; God created the Heavens and the earth. The book of Genesis in God’s Holy word says this and because this is the case, this is what I truly believe. Scientists have for years and years tried to disprove this and they will continue to do so until the end but they will fail. Of course there will be those who choose not to believe that God created the universe and that is sad. I am a Christian, I am saved and have been redeemed by my Savior, Jesus Christ, who died on a cross for my sins. I believe every single word in the Bible and nothing will ever change that. I know this is not the response you were looking for, I suspect that you wanted me to give you some scientific explanation. Well, sorry to disappoint you. I will pray for you and hope that your eyes and heart are opened and that you allow yourself to experience the love and presence of Christ. If you do you will never be the same. God bless you friend.


    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
    Deputy, your high speed and rational defense of Christianity is excellent. You are an informed and logical man so I ask for your thoughts about something that's been bugging me a long time.

    Scientists say life began in the dawn of time in some kind of super chemical swamp when a few stray molecules got zapped by lightening and they fused together (or something like that). My question is, do they have any justification?

    I mean, IF everything they say is true then wouldn't all original chemistry have been inorganic? Without the chemical effects of some pre-existing micro-level forms of life, how could the original inorganic primordial chemistry have decayed and strangely become an organic soup? I just can't see how the atomic structure of inorganic matter could have, of itself, ever produced the swampy chemicals from which life as we know it could possibly occur.

    I've asked a few degree'd scientific atheist types that question and all I get is a "deer in the headlights" expression and some incoherent fumbling for words, usually followed by their weak clincher; "It took millions of years." I wonder; In science, how many millions of years does it take for impossible things to occur?

    Your thoughts, what am I missing???
    Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

  15. #255
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    1,792
    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyDog25 View Post
    Sir, what you are referring to is the “Miller Experiment “ which occurred in the 50’s where the idea of a “prebiotic soup” is discussed.
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I sensed a level of sarcasm in your reply, and also the sense of being lead into a trap.
    My response to you is quite simple; God created the Heavens and the earth.
    Heavens no! I do correct you. No sarcasm or trap at all, I meant everything I said!

    I've been a committed Christian since 1957 and LOVE to study science, history and the Bible. I'm truly impressed by your obviously wide ranging knowledge, ability to organise information and explain things clearly.

    Just hoped you might throw some light on my science question about how (supposed) original conversion of space rocks (i.e., inorganic stuff) into green swamp goo (i.e., organic stuff) that has long puzzled me.

    Scientist's creative W.A.G.s aside, I fully agree it was God's hand (in the person of the Son of God (John 1:1-4) that created everything that was created, including life, not some fermenting ol' swamp mud. I've never read anything from scientists about how such a massively complex transition from one state of matter into another might have occurred. I just don't see how inorganic materials could ever become organic and, as I understand it, only "living" stuff could dissolve and reform into a mixture that might possibly reassemble itself into a living anything no matter how many times lightening hit it.

    I remember the 50's pretty well. But admit I was fairly young at the time and never heard of the "Miller Experiment". ??

  16. #256
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by dtknowles View Post
    It is only a theory.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. This article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.

    Tim
    So, would the use of the words, self, auto, increasing complexity, evolutionary, and emergence go against other scientific principals?

  17. #257
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundarstick View Post
    So, would the use of the words, self, auto, increasing complexity, evolutionary, and emergence go against other scientific principals?
    scientific principals, The six principals or methods of science are as follows:-
    Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
    Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
    Form a Hypothesis. ...
    Conduct an Experiment. ...
    Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion

    self, VERB
    botany
    self-pollinate; self-fertilize.
    "a variety that selfs itself loses lots of vigor in the progeny"

    auto, COMBININGFORM
    self.
    "autoanalysis"
    one's own.
    "autograph"
    by oneself or spontaneous.
    "autoxidation"
    by itself or automatic.
    "autofocusing"

    increasing complexity, an increase in complexity can also be explained through a passive process. Assuming unbiased random changes of complexity and the existence of a minimum complexity leads to an increase over time of the average complexity of the biosphere.This involves an increase in variance , but the mode does not change

    evolutionary, relating to the gradual development of something.

    emergence, the process of coming into being, or of becoming important or prominent.

    It would seem appropriate for science or other studies.

    Tim
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  18. #258
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,295
    It is not principals - it is principles. Learn the difference.
    Second please explain your question in detail.
    Explain exactly why you think those words are contrary to science?


    Quote Originally Posted by Thundarstick View Post
    So, would the use of the words, self, auto, increasing complexity, evolutionary, and emergence go against other scientific principals?
    EDG

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check