"Evolution ... schmevolution! I just need to cool my belly!" (sorry folks for the poor humor ... really just a test of posting an image ... just ignore it!)
So, the evolutionist bases his THEORY on Laws of Physics that he admits are not completely defined and may well be changing? A theory based on an assumption?
IF the beginning is undefined, then why is it not well within reason that a divine being created the universe?
- Evolutionists don’t know where the matter came from
- Evolutionists don’t know how old it is
- Evolutionists don’t know what state it was in before your theory starts
- Evolutionists don’t know who, how, why or when the current Laws of Physics that we rely on came into existence.
- Evolutionists don’t know if the current Laws of Physics have always been the same, and have NO WAY of knowing if they ever changed or how much they changed.
Yet, Evolutionists are telling me they know, AS FACT , what happened on earth 3 billion years ago?
I’m not a physisist. I’m an engineering technician with a healthy dose of common sense.
I have to deal in facts, standards, repeatability, reality. I look at what you just told me and conclude that you have undertaken to prove and purport as FACT a theory and are using parameters that are neither set nor completely defined.
In the engineering world, we call that GIGO.
"Evolution ... schmevolution! I just need to cool my belly!" (sorry folks for the poor humor ... really just a test of posting an image ... just ignore it!)
So do all a priori and most a posteriori theories. In mathematics you might assume Euclid's axioms are true. In theoretical physics you might assume that Schrödinger's Equation (or in classical mechanics, Newton's 2nd Law) is true. In both these cases you have axioms that you have to accept to be true without justification when you are doing theoretical work (though your 'secret' justification will always be a posteriori). As for a posteriori theories, you expect to get an observation of something (to confirm or reject a theory). Otherwise you wouldn't be looking.
-Evolutionists don’t know who, how, why or when the current Laws of Physics that we rely on came into existence.
- Evolutionists don’t know if the current Laws of Physics have always been the same, and have NO WAY of knowing if they ever changed or how much they changed.
Neither do physicists (except perhaps how physics has changed in the last 13 billion years). What is your point? Do you assume that scientists know everything? Did you completely miss my point where I said that physics only describes nature? Let me put it in bold so you don't forget: Physics does not tell nature what to do, it only describes it the best way we know how. Granted, theoretical physics is pretty accurate (in some cases, like quantum electrodynamics, experiments have been built to test up to 11 significant digits and yet still agree with theory). But that still does not mean that you can have insight from it.
I have to deal in facts, standards, repeatability, reality. I look at what you just told me and conclude that you have undertaken to prove and purport as FACT a theory and are using parameters that are neither set nor completely defined.
What are you talking about? Feel free to cite the relevant posting. I think intelligent design is a crackpot theory and that evolution is the more likely theory to be correct (thought they are not mutually exclusive or more importantly exclusive of other possible theories). But so far in this discussion I have only talked about the validity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in evolution and how undefined variables are common in science but still give rise to well defined situations (because science does not tell nature how to act). I don't see how you could have drawn any conclusion of my intentions from my postings. All that I did was correct fundamental errors in how two different posters (yourself included) mischaracterized science.