XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)