XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
      
   On Fri, 22 May 2015 12:57:25 -0700, vallor  wrote:   
   .   
   >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 ["There are a lot more examples"] ...it's up to _you_, "mur",   
   to be   
   >informed -- not for others to teach you.   
      
       I've noticed that atheists never feel they need to support their claims, or   
   give any indication that they have any idea what they want people to think they   
   think they're trying to talk about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)