XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism
On Fri, 8 May 2015 22:35:59 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
wrote:
.
>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.
Why can't you present a lot of them?
>Do a little research.
I'm doing research by challenging those of you who claim there are a lot of
examples to present a lot of examples. So far the research shows VERY CLEARLY
that you're lying and don't have any idea at all what you want people to think
you think you're trying to talk about. That's a much better way of doing
research than to try to support YOUR claim FOR YOU. LOL....the very idea of
doing that for you is HILARIOUS!!!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
