God created the world in 7 days? or Big Bang?

[Neutraligon]

Earth gets energy from sun.

And. the sun creates evolution? No.

How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

[Jessjohnesik]

No evidence for a deity, so no.

Ummmm..... That's twisted logic.
If you say there's no evidence, then is your evidence is that there is no evidence? That's wrong.
You might ASSUME there is no God, but that's it, you cannot be a gnostic atheist.

Are you the Spagghetti Monster to say there can't be a gnostic atheist? No?
Why are you still talking?

[Ifreann]

And. the sun creates evolution? No.

The Sun provides energy to life. Thus life can become more complex, since it is gaining energy. Thus your earlier objection is wrong.

How can we, intelligent beings were created?

We weren't. We just came about like all the rest of life.

So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Third option: You're wrong.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

And yet you go after evolution, one of the best supported theories there is. Top job.

[Immoren]

And. the sun creates evolution? No.

How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

Sun aids it.

You are confusing hypothesis with scientific theory.

[Jehuddah]

Ummmm..... That's twisted logic.
If you say there's no evidence, then is your evidence is that there is no evidence? That's wrong.
You might ASSUME there is no God, but that's it, you cannot be a gnostic atheist.

The default position is no. If evidence appears, we evaluate it and change our minds if necessary.

That's not a scientific way of thinking.
Science is based on facts, not assumings.
People were sure heavy things fall faster too.

[Individuality-ness]

And. the sun creates evolution? No.

How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

The sun gives energy for certain chemical reactions/mutations to occur, therefore providing energy for the process of evolution via natural selection. I don't see any contradiction here.

Abiogenesis: the sun provided additional thermal energy to produce nucleotides and amino acids, building blocks. Again, no contradiction.

[Jessjohnesik]

Do you think it is possible that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my bedroom?

We ASSUME there isn't, in fact, we are pretty sure there isn't.
But we don't KNOW that.

Becasuse there just might be an invisible, intangible dragon in hiser bedroom?

[St Mark]

I believe God caused the big bang.

[Individuality-ness]

And. the sun creates evolution? No.

How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

That too, I forgot.

[Neutraligon]

The default position is no. If evidence appears, we evaluate it and change our minds if necessary.

That's not a scientific way of thinking.
Science is based on facts, not assumings.
People were sure heavy things fall faster too.

Umm, heavy things do fall faster in certain circumstances (they don't fall faster in a vacuum). Just as objects with different shapes fall faster under certain circumstances.

[Great Nepal]

The default position is no. If evidence appears, we evaluate it and change our minds if necessary.

That's not a scientific way of thinking.
Science is based on facts, not assumings.
People were sure heavy things fall faster too.

No.
Null hypothesis dictates that default position is that there it is false.

[Individuality-ness]

I believe God caused the big bang.

No scientific evidence for a deity my dear.

[Transhuman Proteus]

You're misunderstanding the usage of Theory in this instance.

Theory in science is a set of developed explanations for why a phenomenon happens.

Furthermore, the very basis of the scientific method is that it is always willing to be wrong.

No, what I meant is that the scientists got to the conclusion of the Big Bang because of observable phenomenas, HOWEVER, they never really SAW the Big Bang, it is theoretical, and who know, maybe it is wrong.
Science is conflicting itself, is light, a particle, or a wave? In one theory it's that, in the other, it's that.

It has aspects of both, so not much conflict.

But on that - the human species has been puttering along for 100,000+ years (closer to 200,000 in all likelihood). In terms of being what many people consider "civilized" we've been at it for around 7,000 or so years. In terms of a lot of the detailed scientific theories you have a problem with we've really been fleshing them out with evidence over a period of 400-500 years or so.

So geez. Some scientific theories aren't yet definitive enough for you yet? Give it time.

Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are conflicting, they can't co-exist, currently, we are using them both, however, at least one of those theories are wrong, unless there are two truths, which aren't.

I'd question your reading, but lets go with it - history is full of hypothesis that haven't stood the test of time. They are abandoned when it is clear they aren't the best explanation based upon the evidence and thought used to understand it. That really means nothing, except science tends to get better and more correct over time.

Science, to date, shows nothing to suggest a god is needed or involved in anything in the universe. As it advances that isn't changing.

The second law of thermodynamics is conflicting the theory of evolution, which by the law, nothing can become more complex and orginized, unless acted by an external force, AND the universe is becoming more chaotic.

You've really misunderstood the second law there.

[Thrice Crownlands]

No evidence for a deity, so no.

Ummmm..... That's twisted logic.
If you say there's no evidence, then is your evidence is that there is no evidence? That's wrong.
You might ASSUME there is no God, but that's it, you cannot be a gnostic atheist.

No, because one of the rules of science is that all theories are guilty until proven innocent. One need not disprove something that can not provide any proof for itself.

A god who's properties and identity can be infinently changed, and is theoretically gifted with properties that allow him to escape every rule of reason and logic, can not be proven false because the hypothesis is unfalsifable; its not that the evidence needed to prove it false dosen't exist, its that evidence to prove it false can't even be possibly imagined. Its like trying to get a solid grasp empty space. The only way to prove something that can be anything wrong is to prove EVERYTHING wrong, which... well, is obviously not true, since things exists.However, the rub is that its also impossable to ever prove an unfalsifiable true, meaning, since science must assume anything that can not prove itself to be true is false, unfalsifiable theories are false by default.

[Jehuddah]

And. the sun creates evolution? No.

How can we, intelligent beings were created? So it's whether the thermodynamics is wrong, OR Evolution is wrong, there aren't two options.

Some of the scientific theories are debatable.

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

No. That's still against the law, our brain is way too complicated.
If you make a computer, you can't add the computer more information than you know.

That's exactly it, the non-intelligent sun is not enough to create our brain.

[Ifreann]

Do you think it is possible that there is an invisible, intangible dragon in my bedroom?

We ASSUME there isn't, in fact, we are pretty sure there isn't.
But we don't KNOW that.

Then if you are to be intellectually honest, you must afford the idea that my dragon created the Universe equal weight as you do the idea that God did it. That, or accept that ideas without supporting evidence(my dragon, God) are not worth considering.

[Czechanada]

The default position is no. If evidence appears, we evaluate it and change our minds if necessary.

That's not a scientific way of thinking.
Science is based on facts, not assumings.
People were sure heavy things fall faster too.

And in the distance, hundreds of professors that teach research methodology just had a stroke as this post was written.

[Farnhamia]

The default position is no. If evidence appears, we evaluate it and change our minds if necessary.

That's not a scientific way of thinking.
Science is based on facts, not assumings.
People were sure heavy things fall faster too.

And then some Italian guy did some experiments, gathered data and lo! people changed their minds. Something that has no evidence for it does not exist. If evidence comes along that shows that that something does exist, we change our minds. That's how science works.

[Jehuddah]

We ASSUME there isn't, in fact, we are pretty sure there isn't.
But we don't KNOW that.

Becasuse there just might be an invisible, intangible dragon in hiser bedroom?

Probably not, let's keep it like that.

[Individuality-ness]

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

No. That's still against the law, our brain is way too complicated.
If you make a computer, you can't add the computer more information than you know.

That's exactly it, the non-intelligent sun is not enough to create our brain.

Holy Batman is that a flaming strawman I see?

[Anachronous Rex]

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

No. That's still against the law, our brain is way too complicated.

Our brain is no more complicated then any configuration of matter of approximately equal size.

If you make a computer, you can't add the computer more information than you know.

Absolutely you can. Indeed, it's trivial to do this.

That's exactly it, the non-intelligent sun is not enough to create our brain.

Of course not, it merely provides the energy to counteract the second law of thermodynamics.

[Individuality-ness]

Becasuse there just might be an invisible, intangible dragon in hiser bedroom?

Probably not, let's keep it like that.

Then likewise, God probably doesn't exist. </post>

[Neutraligon]

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

No. That's still against the law, our brain is way too complicated.
If you make a computer, you can't add the computer more information than you know.

That's exactly it, the non-intelligent sun is not enough to create our brain.

Again our brain is not a closed system, we receive energy from an outside source (food) thus the law does not hold. You really do not understand the second law at all, or the circumstances under-which it holds. The last thing you commented on has no relevance to the discussion. Our brain, while very complicated is very possible under evolution, and does not contradict the second law. The intelligence or lack of intelligence of the sun has absolutely no importance, all that is important is that it is an external source providing the energy needed for life to propagate, and that because it is an energy source that is outside the earth, the earth itself cannot be considered a closed system. If you were to consider the earth and the sun you might be able to consider that a closed system (simplifying the system is perfectly allowable).

[Ifreann]

What???No. In order for the second law of thermodynamics to hold, the system needs to be a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from an outside source (the sun) the Earth cannot be considered a closed system and so the the second law of thermodynamics has no relevance. We intelligent beings evolved of millions of years.

No. That's still against the law, our brain is way too complicated.
If you make a computer, you can't add the computer more information than you know.

That's exactly it, the non-intelligent sun is not enough to create our brain.

As a computer scientist I assure you that it is trivially easy for me to provide a computer with information that I do not possess.

[Anachronous Rex]

Probably not, let's keep it like that.

Then likewise, God probably doesn't exist. </post>

Indi, Maharaja of Tolerance and Queen of Consistent Logic.