|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: HatterHatter Date: Apr 2, 2008 08:40
On Apr 2, 11:33Â am, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins.
> 1. There is no natural means to increase usable energy in a closed system.
> 2. The universe is decreasing in usable energy.
> 3. Therefore, the initial energy of the universe must have originated
> supernaturally.
> 4. The creation model conforms to the data.
>
> Evolution proposes only natural explanations.
> Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law.
> Models that contradict data are unscientific.
> Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific
>
> http://www.mbbc.us/creation/presentation.htm
still sticking with your underwear gnomes model of christian philosphy
I see.
Hatter
|
| |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: JamesJames Date: May 2, 2008 10:49
>Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins
|
| Show full article (1.47Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Christopher A. LeeChristopher A. Lee Date: May 2, 2008 11:21
On Fri, 02 May 2008 13:49:34 -0400, James peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of origins
>
>>On Apr 2, 11:33Â am, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>>> Second Law of Thermodynamics...
|
| Show full article (2.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Uncle VicUncle Vic Date: May 2, 2008 13:42
One fine day in alt.atheism, James peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>>Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the supernatural model of
>>origins
>
>>On Apr 2, 11:33
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Cory AlbrechtCory Albrecht Date: May 2, 2008 20:53
James wrote:
> From my perspective, I would reword your "christian philosphy" to be
> "Christian truth". I have never seen the Bible be incorrect in matters
> of science. (and it shouldn't be if it really is from God--2 Ti 3:16)
> Have you ever personally investigated the Bible in that matter?
You missed that part in Leviticus 11:6 about rabbits chewing cud, eh?
Strike one for the Bible never being wrong about science.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TimKTimK Date: May 2, 2008 21:14
"Uncle Vic" withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A928B732CEE8vicman@207.115.33.102...> Next, please explain the part about bats being birds, not rodents, and
> how Science is wrong about that.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Uncle VicUncle Vic Date: May 2, 2008 23:33
One fine day in alt.atheism, "TimK" cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Uncle Vic" withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A928B732CEE8vicman@207.115.33.102...>> Next, please explain the part about bats being birds, not rodents, and
>> how Science is wrong about that.
Interesting. Thanks!
|
| Show full article (0.60Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: sjb071158sjb071158 Date: May 3, 2008 00:49
On 3 May, 04:53, Cory Albrecht hotmail.com> wrote:> James wrote:
>> From my perspective, I would reword your "christian philosphy" to be
>> "Christian truth". I have never seen the Bible be incorrect in matters
>> of science. (and it shouldn't be if it really is from God--2 Ti 3:16)
>> Have you ever personally investigated the Bible in that matter?
>
> You missed that part in Leviticus 11:6 about rabbits chewing cud, eh?
>
> Strike one for the Bible never being wrong about science.
An associate of mine raised this one before and got told that because
some rabbits eat their droppings that this is the same as chewing the
cud.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thomas p.thomas p. Date: May 3, 2008 01:01
> On 3 May, 04:53, Cory Albrecht hotmail.com> wrote:>> James wrote:
>>> From my perspective, I would reword your "christian philosphy" to be
>>> "Christian truth". I have never seen the Bible be incorrect in matters
>>> of science. (and it shouldn't be if it really is from God--2 Ti 3:16)
>>> Have you ever personally investigated the Bible in that matter?
>>
>> You missed that part in Leviticus 11:6 about rabbits chewing cud, eh?
>>
>> Strike one for the Bible never being wrong about science.
>
> An associate of mine raised this one before and got told that because
> some rabbits eat their droppings that this is the same as chewing the
> cud.
That is a great solution. It can be applied to any so-called error. We can
just say that it is the same as (fill in the blank). I'm convinced!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: TimKTimK Date: May 3, 2008 09:18
"Uncle Vic" withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A92EFA6D3B0Bvicman@207.115.17.102...> One fine day in alt.atheism, "TimK" cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>> "Uncle Vic" withheld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A928B732CEE8vicman@207.115.33.102...>>> Next, please explain the part about bats being birds, not rodents, and
>>> how Science is wrong about that.
>
> Interesting. Thanks!
|
| Show full article (0.65Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
