Slashdot Mirror

https://christiananswers.net/s...

The actual article seems to only say that one web site, titled "What really happened to the dinosaurs", appears in response to one particular search query, "What happened to the dinosaurs".

Well, I also have these on the first page of Google:

Dinosaur Fate I - Christian Answers Network

What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? (DJ and Tracker John)

There Go the Dinosaurs

The other results are recent articles and blogs about the current case. I had to go to the second page before I saw the first answers which are not related to all of this and which explained about the extinction event 65 million years ago.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

You cannot deny any part of the bible and be "christian". Denying the bible means denying God. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html Without faith, it is impossible to please God....

A good chunk of the Old Testament was written by people who thought the world was flat

I beg to differ. The author of Job knew that the earth is suspended in space (Job 26:7) and that the day-night boundary is a circle (Job 26:10). The prophet Isaiah also spoke of a round earth (Isaiah 40:21-22), as did Solomon (Proverbs 8:27).

If you search to the ends of the Earth, I suspect you'll find someone who can elaborate on it.

It could be argued that the ends of the earth are merely the shore.

Until then, I suggest Job 26:7.

You make a good point about this. Some people reading along might not get the Job 26 reference. Verse 7 ("hanging the earth upon nothing") suggests that there isn't anything that "holds the earth up", as some cultures' myths about turtles all the way down suggest. Likewise, the shape of the curve between day and night is "a circle [...] where light ends in darkness" (26:10), which along with Isaiah 40:21-22 too shows biblical knowledge of the spherical earth.

Can't he just say...

Accio lightsaber!

Oh, wait. Wrong fictional universe that people take too seriously.

I'm basically an atheist (though I'm somewhat familiar with a number of religions), but as Coren22 said, Christians generally say that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all parts of the same entity, so who am I to argue with them?

Here's another reference that makes it even more clear.

And even if God and Jesus really were different people (but Jesus was God's son), I don't think God would prosecute Jesus for infringing on his intellectual property rights.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html

The common Christian saying is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three facets of the same gem.

No, it's not "semantics". "Virtual particles" follow logically from observations and math. The connection may not be intuitive to you, but once you do some simple table top experiments, they follow. An absolute beginning does not logically follow from anything; it is completely new physics that we have no observations to support.

And as far as Christianity is concerned, God is described as creating the universe, i.e. being its cause. Causes predate effects and therefore God must predate the universe. Hence, time cannot have started with the creation of the universe. The usual Christian verbal acrobatics on this point are logically inconsistent; you can't say that "God created the universe and time" because then the term "create" (=cause to exist) doesn't make sense. Furthermore, God is consistently described in the Bible as being subject to the laws of cause and effect, with not the slightest indication that he has any existence out of time.

Whether this argument convinces Christians really doesn't matter (they'll believe a lot of nonsense), what matters is that a lot of people saw logical inconsistencies in the "creator" view even thousands of years ago to look for an alternative. And there is nothing logically inconsistent about the alternative they found: an infinite timeline.

The best argument that Christians can come up with against it is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics and that there isn't enough visible mass for a big crunch, but from a physics point of view, those are not convincing. We simply don't see enough of the universe to draw any firm conclusions.

You can read the Christian b.s. on the subject here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

Nice try at the package-dealing there, but "global warming" is a religion, too.

Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.

Are you not familiar with the prophecies of the Bible? Especially the ones that have come true?

There have been no prophecies in the Bible that have not come true, are unlikely to come true or are impossible to come true any more.

The people who aren't convinced won't be convinced by DNA evidence. Quoting from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html: "In a baraminic study of human with non-human primates, the morphological (form) features such as teeth and bones as well as ecological characters including feeding and habitats were more valuable than chromosomal or molecular (hemoglobin and RNA) information." In other words, as far as the creationists are concerned humans aren't related to other primates and if the molecular evidence suggests otherwise then it must be rejected. This is precisely why creationism is a pseudoscience.

It would be very nice to have DNA confirmation simply for good scientific reasons. But don't be under any illusions that having DNA would convince anyone else who needs to be convinced.

Nah that didn't go over so well. Well how about a little Leviticus for your amusement? http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/lev15.html That seems to be the level of hysteria we're reaching at this point.

Have you ever had an instruction manual for some piece of electronic gear (or a video game) that was so badly translated that it was hard to figure out how the damned thing worked? An instruction manual that was incomplete and seemingly at odds with itself? But you got the piece of gear working anyway, and although the manual helped it was frustrating?

The Bible is life's instruction manual. It is badly translated and at odds with itself, but it is useful. It even explains why you, an athiest, can't use it. John 8:47- " He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

The book of Proverbs is an exemple of much wisdom. "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels".

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you."

I can attest to the fact that it is entirely correct when it says that if you consort with prostitutes, you'll spend a lot of cash. Some of my slashdot journals are about hookers (warning - most of them are NSFW). One whore stole the keys to my car, then came back in the middle of the night and stole the car. It gets mor einteresting but recounting the sad yet hilarious tale would take me offtopic, and it's already chronicled in my journals, so I won't.

Oddly, what a lot of Christians preach isn't in the bible at all! For example, it doesn't badmouth whores, but it does badmouth pimps and adulterers.

Sorry if this wasn't much help.

I am aware of those matters. However, generally, many amateur critics like to say that the Bible teaches geocentrism when it clearly does not and has long been accepted (with the exception of very tiny minority fringe groups) that it does not. Also, as far as historical beliefs go, the geocentric view of the Church is more likely based on the common, historical, accepted Aristotlean view of the time (and casual observation and the lack of previous solid evidence to the contrary) than scripture.

Additionally, when contrary evidence was presented to the Roman authorities by Galileo it was openly, and in some cases, favourably debated. Some argued, though, that it went against the Word of God but many others argued that, in the verses you cite and allude to, the Word of God should correctly be interpreted as either figurative or relative to the observer's perspective (in keeping with the Augustine perspective already accepted by the Church).

Many scholars believe that Galileo was executed not because of his heliocentric views but because he disobeyed papal decree to present heliocentrism as a hypothetical model only and not as a fact until the authorities had decided on the matter (not that there is any good defence for this) and also because openly insulted the pope in speeches and writings (which he should have been free to do also but such was the times).

The point is, these were not simple matters of anti-science that amateur critics like to present (although many such elements needed to be addressed) but a complex interaction of politics, personality, history and scientific consensus.

Probably because of fear of losing face more than anything else the geocentrist elements held sway for a short time over the Roman Church's position but, thankfully, the reason and arguments of heliocentrists (including many believers and clerics) won out as more evidence came in (remember this was all fairly new stuff at the time).

What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?

Plus people forget that even in a closed system it is the TOTAL entropy that must increase. It is very possible given enough energy and the right conditions to form order in localized areas at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.

They mistake entropy for an intensive property like pressure or temperature when it's an extensive one like volume or energy. It's like using the Great Depression to prove Daddy Warbucks couldn't have been rich. I have to wonder how many of these idiots are sitting in air conditioned rooms when they paste their proof that air conditioning is physically forbidden by the laws of nature.

So.....don't "push the envelope." What is the big deal? I don't care if you push the envelope with graphics, resolution, etc, but why must you insist on "pushing the envelope" morally? Do you even have a sense of what morality is? Or is it a case of "I have my own morals, which are good for me, everybody else can live with it or shut up!"? How do a you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"? The majority decides? If the majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when that majority is replaced by a different majority?

        The Bible is the Word of our Creator, and Genesis is literal history. Its science and history can be trusted. Therefore, we have an absolute authority that determines marriage.
                See Bible Questions and Answers
                          http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bibl e.asp

        God made the first man and woman--the first marriage. Thus, marriage can only be a man and a woman because we are accountable to the One who made marriage in the first place.

        And don't forget--according to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there's no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command!

'That's nice for you, but it's not for me'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/ed itorial.asp

Manuscript Support for the
Bible's Reliability
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html

Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mora lity.asp

Bible and Christian Theology
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

Family & Marriage Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fami ly.asp

You need to read

Evolution or Creation:
What difference does it make?

at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.ht ml

Here is a bunch of articles on the same topic:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/crea tion-matters.asp

We came from apes. Apes came from monkeys. Monkeys came from lemurs. Lemurs came from rodents. Rodents came from some earlier mammal. That mammal came from reptiles. Reptiles came from amphibians. Amphibians came from fish. And so on. In fact, the biggest evidence of this IS embryology. Do some research on it some time. There's a reason human embryos have a tail, and are indistinguishable from nearly every other land dwelling embryo for quite a large amount of it's development.

This is simply not true. There are no "leftover" organs from evolution. The "tail" is extremely important for balance among other things. Doctors are learning more and more about the importance of every single organ in the human body. Check out the link above for a very detailed discussion on the topic.

It frustrates me that we Christians are so often criticized for our ignorance when there is just as much ignorance among evolutionists -- probably because of the poor excuse for education in America today. A large percentage of the evolutionary "facts" they teach in schools today have been disproven by evolutionist scientists decades ago, but these lies continue to be propogated. That is not to say that there is not still a lot of evidence that points toward evolution, but rather that creationists do not have a monopoly on ignorance and misleading "evidence".

1. Your misspelling of "prove" suggests that you probably don't actually know much about mathematics (you certainly haven't published anything in English).

2. Scientific consensus at the time of Columbus was that the earth was round.

I did a bit more search into who these "scientists that wrote the text books to support Darwin's evolution" you were talking about were. Guess what I find? This:

http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/unlocking. html

I must have missed all those earlier books/articles that these particular scientists wrote supporting the theory of evolution, but I'm pretty sure they didn't write THE textbooks for the subject.

I'm also pretty sure that you (LovedByGod) won't be able to give me (valid) cited evidence to the contrary. And even if you try, I'm also sure I (or someone else) will point out a major flaw in the evidence.

Good Day,

Monika

P.S. How do you explain viruses (which don't have DNA)?

This issue of both parties ignoring the facts .. I think that is why even "christians" who supposedly follow the same book ..can have diametrically opposing views.

Social conservatives think they are "moral" and that especially they like to think they are christian and follow the bible. Yet most of them actually do exactly the opposite of what the bible says.

Yet, on any given issue ... the "Social conservatives" don't follow the bible.

For one thing, social conservatives oppose immigration/immigrants .. when the Bible is extremely clear on this topic. They also want to build a wall on the southern border (bible says "if you build a high gate, you invite destruction") .. all of histories' walls are tourist attractions today (Great Wall, Hadrian's wall etc.)

http://www.churchworldservice.org/Immigration/bibl e-as-handbook.html

Yet most social conservatives would call for a halt to immigration (or at least non european immigration).

At one time a majority of them would have opposed interracial marriage .. yet the bible is clear on this question as well .. http://www.carm.org/questions/interracial_marriage .htm http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g003.htm l and http://www.tbm.org/whatinterrac.htm

Very strangely the Numbers 12:1 reference used to be quoted (out of context) as a reason not to have interracial marriages.

So, when Jesus was tempted by the devil who was quoting scriptures ..Jesus used objective logic against it. Maybe that's what people need to use .. objective logic versus blind "adherence" to scripture.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c009.htm l

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God

Fossil finds are not evidence of evolution, they are interpreted assuming evolution occured.

No, fossil finds were the first things that led people to start to hypothesize about common descent of diverse life from single ancestry. There were direct observations that fossils existed at layers that did not resemble any existing organisms, and that no fossils of existing organisms were found in certain layers, which led people to believe that 1) there were organisms in the past that do not resemble any organisms today and 2) that organisms today did not exist in their present-day form in the past. Common descent was the explanation used to explain this find. This was before Darwin. If you'd atually studied the issues you would understand this and not make bogus claims that an "assumption" of evolution is behind every interpretation of evidence in biology and palentology.

The physical evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it is the Bible.

That's not physical evidence, that's a religious story. It's no more physical evidence than Greek myths are physical evidence of the Olympian pantheon.

It contains a thorough account of the beginning of time.

So do the Greek creation stories. Why should I choose your God over theirs?

The God I refer to is the only God that exists.

This is known as an "assertion". You need to substantiate it with something called "evidence".

It is the God of the Bible. The Jews have known this God for centuries.

What about Brahman? The Hindus have known that God for centuries also. Why should I believe your claims over theirs?

Now we can know this God through Jesus Christ.

And I can know Brahman through Vishnu OR Shiva. Or one of the countless other gods of the Hindu pantheon, for all Gods -- and indeed, all things -- are merely an extension of Brahman.

I exclude all other possibilities because God said 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20).

So you assume the God that you accept over other Gods because of something that the God that you accept said. But you have to accept your God to accept that your God said anything in the first place. That's circular reasoning.

Do you have an argument that isn't based on a logical fallacy?

That is, the world (no, the universe) declares God's existance each and every day in everything you see. I recommend reading the many available resources that can be found at http://www.christiananswers.net/.

That's great. I can get the same level of intellectual discourse from a devout Hindu. Can you give me an argument that does not appeal to logical fallacies and actually relies upon objectively observable evidence rather than a preexinsting assumption that you are already correct?

The physical evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it is the Bible. It contains a thorough account of the beginning of time. The God I refer to is the only God that exists. It is the God of the Bible. The Jews have known this God for centuries. Now we can know this God through Jesus Christ. I exclude all other possibilities because God said 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:20). That is, the world (no, the universe) declares God's existance each and every day in everything you see. I recommend reading the many available resources that can be found at http://www.christiananswers.net/.

Lastly, my use of assumption is not dishonest - it is absolutely correct. You (or those who believe what you are arguing for) believe (i.e. assume) that the universe and all of life came about through natural forces. God has told use differently. I can choose to believe God, the giver of truth, or I can choose to believe man, a fallen being with a sin-nature. To me this is easy. Maybe you are still struggling with this. I pray that you will one day accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior and that you will know the Truth! David Onder

We can stop this vicious rumor now. The Bible makes specific references to the earth being round - long before the flat earth problems. See Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (NIV) See also Job 26:10 "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." You may go to http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.ht ml for more information. David Onder

It's really not a bizaare theory at all, although it may seem like it compared to the traditional theory that they were extinct long before humans. There have been blood cells found in dinosaur bones that were not completely fossilized. (link) If you factor in a global flood a few thousand years ago, then the theory makes a lot of sense. I challenge you to read some or all of the articles here.

It's really not a bizaare theory at all, although it may seem like it compared to the traditional theory that they were extinct long before humans. There have been blood cells found in dinosaur bones that were not completely fossilized. (link) If you factor in a global flood a few thousand years ago, then the theory makes a lot of sense. I challenge you to read some or all of the articles here.

Yeah, I found the article you seem to be referencing here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-extinc t3.html

Too bad Noah forgot to bring a pair of T-Rex on the boat. Idiot.

Some have translated "Behemoth" to be a hippopotamus. Give me a break... go look at a picture of a hippo. They're fat tubs of lard with puny tails. The description here is much closer to a dinosaur (who eats grass). Chapter 41 goes on to talk about the Leviathan, a great dinosaur-like sea creature. Before you say I'm crazy for claiming that dinosaurs and humans once lived together, your question might be answered here or here.

Some have translated "Behemoth" to be a hippopotamus. Give me a break... go look at a picture of a hippo. They're fat tubs of lard with puny tails. The description here is much closer to a dinosaur (who eats grass). Chapter 41 goes on to talk about the Leviathan, a great dinosaur-like sea creature. Before you say I'm crazy for claiming that dinosaurs and humans once lived together, your question might be answered here or here.

First of all, I admit that I believe in God and a literal interpretation of the Bible regarding the creation story. However, I don't support the whole Intelligent Design movement. I understand that ID is not scientific theory and that evolution is. The theory behind ID is basically that everything is too complex to have evolved, and therefore it must have been designed by some higher being. Because of this, ID proponents are simply trying to disprove evolution, which would not neccessarily make ID true. Because of all this, the whole idea of ID really bothers me. But, ID is not the only alternative to evolution. There is also Biblical creation. Before I go on, let me make it clear that ID and creation are NOT the same. Biblical creation is actually a reasonable alternative to evolution, and has evidence to back it up... far beyond the claim that we're simply too complex. While you still can't prove scientifically that God exists, you can find evidence that supports the Bible's accuracy.

Much of the same evidence that is used to support evolution can also be used to support Biblical creation. Most of it is up for interpretation, but we tend to only hear it from the evolutionists' side. So let's compare the different perspectives. If you're an evolutionist and you look at the fossil record, you would say it supports evolution. And it does. But if you're a creationist and you look at the same fossil record, you will see that it supports a global flood. And it does. Take a look at genetic mutations. You can say that the accumulation of random, positive mutations is responsible for much of evolution. And that's a reasonable theory. A creationist observes the effects of mutations in today's world, sees that they are responsible for increasing diseases and cancer, and that the accumulation of negative mutations is slowly turning our genetic code to gibberish. This supports the Biblical idea that the world is a prisoner of decay (Romans 8:20-25). Same goes for almost anything else... geology, archaeology, astronomy, history, genetics, biology. The findings that are typically explained by evolution can also be reasonably explained by Biblical creation. By itself, the evidence for evolution does not contradict the Bible... but the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence is what contradicts the Bible.

It's a shame that so many Christians end up compromising... "I still believe in the Bible, but the creation story is hard to believe, and there's so much evidence for evolution, so maybe God created humans through the process of evolution." First of all, the evidence does support Biblical creation. Second, this theory is very inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of who God is and His purpose for creating us. Try reading the articles from this site to get a better idea of how science could possibly support Biblical creation rather than evolution.

I hope I don't sound harsh towards evolutionists. I definitely have respect for them, and I'm not set out to disprove them. I understand that evolution is a very reasonable and convincing explanation of where we came from. But I just want to make it clear that it is not the only reasonable explanation, and that evidence in support of the Bible is just as viable. Also, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Personally, I would rather be confident that the Bible is accurate. If God does not exist and we evolved from single celled organisms, then this life is as good as it gets. If the Bible is true, then this life is as bad as it gets.

Before you start telling me how ignorant I am and then asking "well what about this?" and "how could that work?" take some time and read the articles from my link. Chances are, it's already answered.

First of all, I admit that I believe in God and a literal interpretation of the Bible regarding the creation story. However, I don't support the whole Intelligent Design movement. I understand that ID is not scientific theory and that evolution is. The theory behind ID is basically that everything is too complex to have evolved, and therefore it must have been designed by some higher being. Because of this, ID proponents are simply trying to disprove evolution, which would not neccessarily make ID true. Because of all this, the whole idea of ID really bothers me. But, ID is not the only alternative to evolution. There is also Biblical creation. Before I go on, let me make it clear that ID and creation are NOT the same. Biblical creation is actually a reasonable alternative to evolution, and has evidence to back it up... far beyond the claim that we're simply too complex. While you still can't prove scientifically that God exists, you can find evidence that supports the Bible's accuracy.

Much of the same evidence that is used to support evolution can also be used to support Biblical creation. Most of it is up for interpretation, but we tend to only hear it from the evolutionists' side. So let's compare the different perspectives. If you're an evolutionist and you look at the fossil record, you would say it supports evolution. And it does. But if you're a creationist and you look at the same fossil record, you will see that it supports a global flood. And it does. Take a look at genetic mutations. You can say that the accumulation of random, positive mutations is responsible for much of evolution. And that's a reasonable theory. A creationist observes the effects of mutations in today's world, sees that they are responsible for increasing diseases and cancer, and that the accumulation of negative mutations is slowly turning our genetic code to gibberish. This supports the Biblical idea that the world is a prisoner of decay (Romans 8:20-25). Same goes for almost anything else... geology, archaeology, astronomy, history, genetics, biology. The findings that are typically explained by evolution can also be reasonably explained by Biblical creation. By itself, the evidence for evolution does not contradict the Bible... but the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence is what contradicts the Bible.

It's a shame that so many Christians end up compromising... "I still believe in the Bible, but the creation story is hard to believe, and there's so much evidence for evolution, so maybe God created humans through the process of evolution." First of all, the evidence does support Biblical creation. Second, this theory is very inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of who God is and His purpose for creating us. Try reading the articles from this site to get a better idea of how science could possibly support Biblical creation rather than evolution.

I hope I don't sound harsh towards evolutionists. I definitely have respect for them, and I'm not set out to disprove them. I understand that evolution is a very reasonable and convincing explanation of where we came from. But I just want to make it clear that it is not the only reasonable explanation, and that evidence in support of the Bible is just as viable. Also, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Personally, I would rather be confident that the Bible is accurate. If God does not exist and we evolved from single celled organisms, then this life is as good as it gets. If the Bible is true, then this life is as bad as it gets.

Before you start telling me how ignorant I am and then asking "well what about this?" and "how could that work?" take some time and read the articles from my link. Chances are, it's already answered.

Taking that Law, we can now turn to the most famous equation in the world, E=MC^2. This states that Energy is equals to Matter, times the square of a Constant. Energy and Matter are interchangable: Energy can turn into Matter, Matter can turn into Energy. When combined with the Principle of Conservation of Energy, you get this statement:

"Energy AND Matter can neither be created nor destroyed."

Now that we have established that, we can turn to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states:

"All work processes tend towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time."

The universe is getting more disordered and more simplified, as dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, the theory of Evolution has the basic principle that everything is getting more organized and more complex.

My arguments summarized:

1. The Big Bang cannot be true as it contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics.

2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

My opinion on the universe:

1. The universe started as a complex and orderly living entity, which, over time, began to expand. As it aged, it began to expand, and the life began to DEVOLVE until it reached our current state, humans. You can even witness this devolving process. Think. 10 or so years ago, we didn't have so many hurricanes, earthquakes, or other devastating natural disasters. People are becoming stupider by the day.

2. As for where the entire mass of atoms came from, either there is a God(which is possible), or the universe has always existed, and there in some incomprehensible way, time started a billion years back, and the universe came into existence with time. And remember this. There might be something larger than a universe...

References:

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.h tml
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f .html
http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/FIRST.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermod ynamics
http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html
http://www.secondlaw.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermod ynamics.html

This is what I understand the laws to mean...if I'm wrong, by all means, correct me...

"I also suspect there's very few people who would consider anything G-rated inappropriate for any child old enough to use a computer without help."

You think so, huh?

http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/games/20 03/windwaker.html

I have read many of the comments here. Many of them I find revealing as to the amount of knowledge the poster has on the subject. I do not claim to be an expert, but I do claim to have studied this topic from both sides of the fence. I can assure you that many of the posters do not understand this subject. 1. There are scientific explanations for creationism. Every last morsel has an undisputable argument saying creationism can be true, literally as the Bible says it is. 2. There are no transitional forms between species. None have been found that all scientists agree are real. There have been many hoaxes in this area, but no undisputable transitional forms. Again, if you read up on this topic you would get the truth. If you really want to give this topic a fair shake, then take some time to hear out some Christian scientists arguments on this topic. These guys are SCIENTISTS that adhere to any and all scientific truths (but not all theories). The following websites will give you the truth, not myths and half-truths of which you will find many on this page. You want the truth? If so, check out these sites. If not, keep arguing with the uninformed. Excellent site on this topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Another one: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html My intentions are not to offend anyone, just to make a point without writing for an hour. If you want the truth, seek it. It is there. Thank you, Joe

I would quote my physics books but it is harder to provide a link to a hardback book ;-)

but here are a few more links:

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node78.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermod ynamics.html
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemi stry/Miscellenous/Helpfile/spontaneityentropy/2ndl aw.htm

Google has 15,897 more if you like. Every one I reviewed said entropy can ONLY increase.

As per your statement, I beleive I DID refute your claim.

You put forth a tea cup as a model for your claim that entropy remains constant.

I provided two counter examples that directly refute your claim. One immediate and one very long term. Tea evaporating and wood rotting. Both of these will increase the entropy of your system unless energy is used to counter act it.

I also provided an atomic view of the world that directly refutes your claim vis-avis nanotech.

This principle is represented in the "activation energy" of chemical reactions. You can graph it by drawing a line followed by a hump with another line following the hump at a different height than the first.

In a chemical reaction you must put enough energy into the molecules to get them over the hump. The hump represents how dificult it is to get the atoms where they need to be. The height of the lines represents the energy level of the products based on bond energy and entropy level.

Now, please remember that atoms are not all at the same energy level. Temperature only represents the AVERAGE energy level. Now if the hump is close to the line on one side, the chance of a random higher energy molecule hitting your fancy nanite and giving it enough energy to break apart goes up dramatically.

As per YOUR physics knowledge, I will admit there is the possibility of a system which does not spontaneously increase entropy. However this system absolutly requiers a closed system and pre-existing uniform entropy. Your example has neither of these. Now systems like this has ever been observed or created and no one anticipates finding them.

I suggest that you review your physics books and sample problems before you try and design an entropy static system.

"Gamers are everywhere and they're everyone. They are your friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, and kids, they lead responsible and caring lives, balancing their enjoyment of interactive entertainment with many other activities important to a well-rounded lifestyle,"

Fortunately, we have God's word in writing, and if we somehow get the idea that God is telling us to do something inconsistent with His Word, we can know that somehow we're being deceived

No. The Bible contains a specific example of God issuing a command to do evil as a test of faith. Genesis 22:02. The approved response is to carry out the act, trusting that God will intercede at the last moment.

Strapping on a belt of explosives to slaughter the infidels is inconsistent with God's Word.

No. Slaughtering infidels on God's command is a repeating pattern throughtout much of the beginning Bible. Although explosives were obviously unavaible back then, the tactic of dying yourself to kill multiple enemy is approved: Judges 16:29

Jesus man! That's 19 883.8782 rods!

Congratulations. You are even more uptight than the fundie film reviewers at Christian Answers and the CapAlert. Report immediately to your nearest church for further indoctrination.

Science, is that what this is? I thoght it was more along the lines of quackery. And Researchers I didn't see anything about researchers in the cnn post. The article says ...A joint U.S.-Turkish team of 10 explorers plans to make the arduous trek up... these are explorers. Explorers may be scientists and/or researchers but they are not necessarily so.

And what about the sponsors "Daniel P. McGivern, president of Shamrock- The Trinity Corporation" Hm... Shamrock, Trinity Corparation. This sounded like a Christian organization to me. So I did some quick checking.

Here is an interesting quote of Mr McGivern "There is value in suffering. We need only look to Christ's death for proof." Read more here

If you are not yet convinced of Mr McGivern's religious leanings check this page where he attacked the movie Dogma because it "openly blasphemes God, defames all organized religion, and particularly mocks Catholic teachings" What's wrong with this guy? Hey it's only a movie right?

Haven't had enough yet; two more links that show Mr McGivern's religious leanings. One at Christian Answers and one at Priests For Life.

I find it very disappionting that a major media outlet like CNN is covering this bullshit. Also, I know it's Tuesday but aren't there better stories to post on ./ :~)

dinosaurs and the ark

Never saw a Christian review of Max Payne then, huh?

"The thing that bothered me the most was the presence of Satanic activity. That stuff is most definitely real and very scary. I honestly can't recommend this game. It is a lot of fun, but don't let that pull you into what is hidden deeper."

Though we all see your point, that there are people who think this way, I don't think that site represents them honestly.

Perhaps. But this one does.

While we at BASH are yet unable to cure niggerism
(or any other such God-inflicted curse of skin pigmentation), we
have had record success turning limp-wristed, "Queer Eye" watching
nancy-boys and bull-dyke lesbians back in to straight, God-fearing,
Republican-voting human beings!

All we need is your pious financial support, plenty of imprecatory
prayer and a good-sized, Leviticus-charged stone or two, and soon the
GNAA will be a thing of the past!

To join, go here and
read all about how you can start saving gay Negroes from Satan's clutches!

This post was brought to you by a Landover Baptist Church Member.

To obtain a copy of this source, and spread the loving, gay nigger-hating word of Jesus, go to BASH's source page and download it for yourself. Post it wherever you see the GNAA rearing its ugly, demonic head! GLORY!

If you or anyone you know exhibits these signs they may be
a homosexual and at risk of joining Satan's Army, or the GNAA.

Anyway, if you find this interesting I highly recommend that you look into the matter further. I find it astonishing how many people assume that no scientific evidence exists to support Christianity, especially on Slashdot. There is actually tons of evidence to support it. This is a topic that I personnally find fascinating, and I've thought about starting a website on the topic, although there are others already:). The most comprehensive site on this topic that I currently know of is this one.

Defeat the GNAA! Join Landover Baptist Church's very own B.A.S.H. (Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals) Ministry!

While we at BASH are yet unable to cure niggerism (or any other such God-inflicted curse of skin pigmentation), we have had record success turning limp-wristed, "Queer Eye" watching nancy-boys and bull-dyke lesbians back in to straight, God-fearing, Republican-voting human beings!

All we need is your pious financial support, plenty of imprecatory prayer and a good-sized, Leviticus-charged stone or two, and soon the GNAA will be a thing of the past!

To join, go here and read all about how you can start saving gay Negroes from Satan's clutches!

This post was brought to you by a Landover Baptist Church Member.

If you or anyone you know exhibits these signs they may be a homosexual and at risk of joining Satan's Army, or the GNAA.

Are you, by any chance, a member of the GNAA? If so, please... come by BASH. we can help.

Defeat the GNAA! Join Landover Baptist Church's very own B.A.S.H. (Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals) Ministry!

While we at BASH are yet unable to cure niggerism (or any other such God-inflicted curse of skin pigmentation), we have had record success turning limp-wristed, "Queer Eye" watching nancy-boys and bull-dyke lesbians back in to straight, God-fearing, Republican-voting human beings!

All we need is your pious financial support, plenty of imprecatory prayer and a good-sized, Leviticus-charged stone or two, and soon the GNAA will be a thing of the past!

To join, go here and read all about how you can start saving gay Negroes from Satan's clutches!

This post was brought to you by a Landover Baptist Church Member.

If you or anyone you know exhibits these signs they may be a homosexual and at risk of joining Satan's Army, or the GNAA.