XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: vallor@cultnix.org   
      
   On 05/22/2015 09:04 AM, mur wrote:   
   > 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!!!   
      
   When discussing common knowledge, it's up to _you_, "mur", to be   
   informed -- not for others to teach you.   
      
   --   
    -v   
      
   The nice thing about standards   
   is that there are so many of them to choose from.   
   		-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)