XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: cfajohnson@cfaj.ca   
      
   On 2015-05-09, mur wrote:   
   > On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:40:27 -0400, raven1    
   wrote:   
   > .   
   >>On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:27:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>In article , mur wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:37:21 -0400, raven1    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> >On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:05:22 -0400, James Redford   
   >>>> > wrote:   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:46:19 -0400, raven1   
   >>>> >> wrote:   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>>On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:16:40 -0400, James Redford   
   >>>> >>> wrote:   
   >>>> >>>   
   >>>> >>>>Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological   
   >>>> >>>>evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact   
   >>>> >>>>a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional   
   >>>> >>>>postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical   
   >>>> >>>>limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no   
   >>>> >>>>empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded.   
   >>>> >>>   
   >>>> >>>Even if one granted those premises, there is no empirical evidence   
   >>>> >>>that any kind of God has, in fact, evolved yet, so at best they would   
   >>>> >>>suggest that such a thing is possible, not prove that a God exists.   
   >>>> >>>But since the premises are trivially false (biological evolution is,   
   >>>> >>>in fact, constrained by chemistry and physics), that's a moot point.   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>But as the rest of my post which you here reply to, yet cut out,   
   >>>> >>demonstrates, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of   
   >>>> >>Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually   
   >>>> >>mathematically force the universe to diverge to infinite computational   
   >>>> >>power,   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >Nonsense. As Pauli would say, it isn't even wrong.   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >> becoming literally infinite in processor speed and infinite in   
   >>>> >>memory space at the final singularity, of which singularity is termed   
   >>>> >>the Omega Point.   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >Or the "noosphere", if you read Teillard de Chardin, rather than   
   >>>> >Tipler...   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >>So far from physics constraining evolution, the known physical laws   
   >>>> >>actually logically force the universe to evolve to infinite complexity   
   >>>> >>and infinite intelligence.   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >Nice job moving the goalposts. What has this assertion to do with   
   >>>> >*biological* evolution, which is, as I noted, constrained by chemistry   
   >>>> >and physics   
   >>>>   
   >>>>     The fact that there are no examples of reptiles in transition stages   
   to   
   >>>> birds, or mammals in transition stages to flying mammals, etc, alive   
   today is   
   >>>> evidence that something (like God) had deliberate influence on evolution.   
   >>>> Otherwise why would it no longer be working as it did in the past?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>What a load of garbage.Evolution is happening all around us.   
   >>   
   >>He's also just plain wrong about transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx,   
   >>anyone?   
   >   
   >     Present your quotes of me mentioning fossils, or be revealed as a blatant   
   > liar. I have mentioned Archaeopteryx in the past and the fact that there   
   aren't   
   > a lot more examples is support for what I pointed out.   
      
      There are a lot more examples. Do a little research.   
      
      
   --   
   Chris F.A. Johnson   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)