Zee

SRB.. you are fast!!!:notworthy

OK, I just want to start talking about the eyes.

The eyes is a common example of Irreducible Complexity (IC), which is used so many times by creationists.

Biologists around the world are looking for the evidence of a real IC system, because such a system, if found, will flush the theory of evolution right away. However, until today, there is no real IC system that we have found. The eyes should be another hoax. Maybe you want to consult a biologist for an explanation of human eyes.

Also, about the monochrome and manual focus thing, ask him this question. "Supposed that our eyes now are monochrome and with manual focus, will you believe me if I tell you that our eyes are designed?" Just to show how easy it is to decieve people with relligion

BTW, what is non sequitur???

Wyz_sub10

"Non sequitur" means "it does not follow".

For instance:

"It's not raining, so I do not need an umbrella." is 'sequitur', so to speak.

It follows that if it is not raining, you do not need an umbrella.

As opposed to:

"It's not raining, so I will never need an umbrelaa." This is non sequitur - it does not follow that you will never need an umbreall just because it isn't raining now.

Or an extreme example...

"I am hungry, therefore I must need sleep."

Lobstrosity

This is not physically plausible given what we know about quantum mechanics. In the real world, particles will settle into a non-zero ground state energy level as the temperature is lowered--i.e. they always vibrate no matter what the temperature. For example, there is no temperature for which helium will become a solid at atmospheric pressure. Even at absolute zero, helium will remain a liquid (although then it probably wouldn't be fair to say the helium was at absolute zero--perhaps the more accurate statement would be that quantum uncertainty means that absolute zero is an unreachable idealism?). The only way to make solid helium is by cranking the pressure way up while simultaneously bringing the temperature way down. Even as a solid, though, there will still be atomic vibrations of the helium lattice.

Zee

... and would you correct it, please?

Temperature, by definition, is a measure of the kinetic energy in molecules. So if the temperature is absolute zero, the kinetic energy should also be zero. Am I wrong? Or you are talking about quantum physics?

Lobstrosity

I provided the correction by editing my original post above.

Zee

Well, wrong? no.
Impossible? yes.

Yes, it is actually the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that renders the state of no molecular vibration impossible. How can we make a particle to be completely stationary? That means we will know the exact location, as well as the exact momentum, and it violates the uncertainty principle. However, I think this will not come out from a christian-atheist debate.

Anybody have an answer for the eyes question?

Dr. Retard

From "perfect order" (a scientific concept) to "perfect state" (twaddle) is a slippery move. You should call them on this. "Perfect state", why it sounds like the Garden of Eden! How nice! Only a God could be responsible for this! A state of perfect order (i.e., a state of zero entropy) is dull by comparison. Don't let them exploit this slippery move.

beastmaster

Here's a step-by-step scenario for the evolution of the camera eye, written for the layperson:

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/eye.html

HRG

Even worse for fermions (electrons, protons, nuclei with an odd number of nucleons etc.). Since every state can only be occupied by one fermíon (Pauli exclusion principle), at low temperatures they will fill up all available states up to a certain energy (the Fermi edge), which may be quite high. The pressure of electrons in such a state is what keeps white dwarf stars stable.

Bosons can aggregate in one state, and will do so in the ground state if the temperature is sufficiently low (the famous Bose-Einstein condensation).

BTW, "vibrate" is a bit misleading as the particles are quite stationary. It's just that their momentum and position are not sharply defined, but spread out.
Absolute zero is already unreachable in classical thermodynamics (the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics).

regards,
HRG.

theophilus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by acronos
Lack of evidence for a God? Pretty much the only evidence that Jesus even existed is foistered by christians(the christian authored bible filled with contridictions) or is questionable. The evidence for God is even more sketchy.

This is really unfair of you to lead this student astray. You load your statements with perjorative terms to suggest that they have weight when they are, in fact, fatuous.
"Pretty much the only evidence...foistered, etc" There is less extant evidence for the existence of Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar, than there is for Jesus.
It is not the quantity of the evidence; it is the quality.
"bible filled with contradictions.." This is mere atheistic cant. It is both technically false and philosophically meaningless.
The Bible, as the word of God, cannot be filled with contradictions since it is the standard of what is true as well as what is knowable.
Unless you can identify an alternate, infallible epistemology by which to evaluate the bible, you remarks are hubris.
Besides, who are you to say contradictions are a sign of error?

Christianity has made a constant retreat. The world was flat, it's not. Disease is the wrath of God, then why is God's wrath cureable with antibiotics. Lightning was the wrath of God, then why is Gods wrath cureable with a lightning rod. The world is 6000 years old, then how can we see stars that are billions of light-years away.

You must know better than this. Christianity, as a system of belief, has never held these things. Some Christians, as imperfect people, have held these things (as have non-Christians) and have tried to allign them with scripture but they are clearly not taught in the bible. Besides, most of the scientists who challenged these beliefs were Christians.

Which God? Why shouldn't I worship purple elves or Isam.
This is an appeal to ignorance. The same argument could be applied to any area where there are competing systems. Why liberty and not tyrrany? The presence of competing systems does not mean all are false and does not preclude the possibility of identifying the truth.

The problem of evil - How could a perfectly good god create a universe that has evil in it.

A misstatement of fact. God did not "create" a universe that has evil in it. Evil is the consequence of sin. Now, if you want to argue about why he created a universe which included the possibility of sin, then you're dealing in theology, and that's outside the scoope of this debate.