Need help refuting something

[DudeAlmighty]

Yo dudes, what's going down in groovetown. Sorry. :p

I need a little assistance. I am having a debate somewhere and they have provided me with this:

Lot's of Scientific evidence and Biblical proof regarding God as Creator.

Quote
The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions." Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . . "Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth." Einstein's theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven. If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.[2]

The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

God has declared our standing as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . (Genesis 1:26).
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. In our finiteness we don't fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.

REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

This point of view among so many scientists today is described in Romans 1:20: "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." Dr. Sagan has rejected out of hand the evidences he has clearly seen for design in the universe. Although he has expressed a reluctant need to find a Designer, he has given up on the search and has constructed his own "Tower of Babel."


the "lots of evidence..." at the top should link to
this (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-264.htm) .

here is my current argument.


The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions." Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.


Has science shown the Bible to be untrue? No, but it has shown it to be improbable. Just as science has shown certain aspects of evolution, especially pure Darwinian Evolution to be improbable. I was under the impression science supported the most likely/acceptable explanation according to current evidence. Saying science hasn't disproven Creationism, if you pardon my bluntness, is like saying science hasn't disproven Santa Clause. The important thing is that Creationism proves itself.

From the middle onwards in that part, it isn't really an argument but a statement (or assertion) of the writers' personal beliefs.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . . "Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth." Einstein's theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven. If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.[2]

Isn't saying Sagan believes there is no life elsewhere just because he can find no evidence within our local system and those we can see. The universe is vast and the probability of our planet being the one and only planet with life is vastly dwarfed by the odds of there being life.

The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

<I'm not an expert-I'm seventeen for crying out loud. If anyone who has greater expertise on this would like to comment, please do.>

These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

God has declared our standing as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . (Genesis 1:26).
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. In our finiteness we don't fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.

Using the Bible, written by Christians for Christians to promote the Faith is insufficient evidence, especially for non-theist scientists. I'm afraid quoting scripture at a non-theist is an ineffective tool for supporting an argument.

REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

This point of view among so many scientists today is described in Romans 1:20: "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." Dr. Sagan has rejected out of hand the evidences he has clearly seen for design in the universe. Although he has expressed a reluctant need to find a Designer, he has given up on the search and has constructed his own "Tower of Babel."

Carl Sagan is not 'wrong' because he is 'blinded to the evidence'. He, like myself and many other non-theists, most likely does not have sufficient evidence to believe. And I reject the assertion that he has rejected 'clearly seen evidence' of a creator. If the eveidence was as clear as suggested, I propose there would be much greater support or acceptance of Creationism.


---
There we go. Anyone want to assist?

[Atheos]

Just a start...

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

The creation myth in Genesis is quite specific that "The evening and the morning were the first day", "the second day", etc. But it is not until the fourth day that God creates the Sun. This implies a bronze age misunderstanding about the nature of the solar system. The ancients had no idea that all the light of day came just from the sun. They believed that the sun rose and sat as did the moon.

Several times in the bible (Joshua 10, for one) a claim is made that God caused the sun to "stand still in the sky" or even to go backwards. The logistics of either of these need no elaboration. The Joshua description even includes that the moon stayed still as well. This belies a bronze age mentality that the sun and move in unison. Whether you choose to say that the earth simply stopped rotating on its axis or you suggest that the entire solar system suddenly went into a geosynchronous orbit, the logistics of either of thes two "miracles" is staggering, based on our modern understanding of the cosmos.

In addition to this, the Genesis myth also includes a solid "firmament" (a perceived solid ceiling or sky) which we know does not actually exist. It took God a whole day to create this ceiling, by the way. Other ludicrous examples of goat-herder science are the many implications that the stars are tiny objects that can be cast down to the earth and trampled under the feet.

Also, the bible consistently refers to the moon as a light and even speaks of the moon "giving off her light." This of course is another example of pre-technology understanding of the universe, as we know the moon does not produce light.

The terms "Sunrise" and "Sunset" are holdovers from a time when people believed the sun actually rose and set. They now carry concrete meaning in our language today, but this fact has nothing to do with the reliability of the bible's description of the earth.

The Bible also describes the earth as "resting on four pillars" and having "four corners". It consistently describes God as being "above" the earth. These are all consistent with ancient observers who had no idea that the earth was a sphere and that there was no "up" or "down". The biblical inference of a tree so tall that it could be seen from all the earth in Daniel, as well as the biblical promise that Jesus was going to come down from heaven in the clouds and "Every eye shall see him" all belie a belief in a flat earth where these things would be possible.

The "flat earth" and "geocentric universe" are as inextricably glued to the pages of the bible as the rest of the nonsense contained therein in spite of the best efforts of apologists to get away from them.

-Atheos

[Flint]

The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions." Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant

Significance is a relative term. We aren't insignificant to ourselves, and little else matters.

random combinations of molecules

We are highly nonrandom combinations of molecules, so this is simply false.

near a remote star

Remote is another relative term. Remote from what? From our viewpoint, the sun is right there.

in a vast, uncaring universe?

This is an anthropomorphization. We have no indication that the universe is even capable of such human emotions as caring, but this lack of evidence is at least suggestive.

I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

Kewl. Nobody begrudges you any belief you care to hold, so long as you don't endanger anyone else. After all, the Golden Rule says if we wish to be permitted our beliefs, we must permit you yours in exchange.

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

Well, they all communicate information. I think we understand that we can only observe directly from our own frame of reference.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . .

Remember that this is a statement based on a doctrine others may not share.

"Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth."

In the absence of evidence, Sagan is expressing HIS beliefs. Someday evidence may be found showing Sagan was right or wrong in his beliefs. Today, we don't know.

Einstein's theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven. If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.[2]

What does this mean, exactly? Theories can never be proven. That's inherent in the nature of science. 'Proof' is only possible in artifically constrained systems like math and logic. Out in the real universe, proof is unavailable. We have only probabilities. Einstein's theories (remember, theories are explanations of evidence in science. They are "guesses" only in the vernacular) have so far done an excellent job of extending Newton's theories in more extreme conditions where Newton's theories were too limited. None of this has anything to do with the speed of light. Lightspeed is, according to Einstein, the fastest speed our universe permits. But it's not very fast relative to the distances of space, so when we see the stars, we are seeing them as they were long ago.

The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics,

No, it does not. Even Answers in Genesis recommends that creationists no longer make this claim, since it is so soundly refuted, and the refutation is so well known, that even bused-in-sucker audiences laugh at it anymore.

cannot be supported by the fossil record,

This is not only false, it's quite backward. One of the most important original purposes of the theory of evolution was to *explain* the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record was the key evidence on which the theory was based. Turning around and saying that the theory "does not support" the evidence it was created to explain is either incredibly stupid or simply perverse.

violates common sense in the development of complex systems,

This claim is probably true. Much of science violates common sense. But this is why human understanding of the universe increased extremely little for thousands of years when only "common sense" was available, and skyrocketed when the scientific method was developed. Sciece exists largely to correct the errors "common sense" imposed on us for so very long.

and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

This is another statement that's flat false. Indeed, if there is any puzzle here, it's why evolution has moved so slowly, considered altogether, when biological changes (speciation) occurs so very rapidly when it DOES occur. The likely explanation is that the adaptive landscape generally changes far more slowly than the ability of evolution to keep up with it. Sometimes, however, the environment changes so rapidly evolution doesn't have a chance (consider the K-T event). The other side of this coin is also very interesting. Mammals changed very little for 100 million years while dinosaurs ruled. Within perhaps 5 million years after the dinosaurs were killed, mammals had radiated profusely in size, shape, function, environmental niche, etc. It could reasonably be said that mammalian variation exploded. The bottom line is simple: When it CAN move quickly, evolution DOES move quickly.

These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

But I hope we can now see that this conclusion is based on a long sequence of false statements, as though evidence and human intelligence don't matter at all. The theories continue to make a wealth of accurate predictions, so can't be said to be "faulty" in any way. But the alternative, unfortunately, is that either Scripture is faulty, or that your *interpretation* of scripture is faulty. Clearly, neither of these alternatives is thinkable for you.

God has declared our standing as follows:

Remember that these statements of faith only apply to one particular family of religions. Considering the population of the entire planet, these beliefs are in the minority.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . (Genesis 1:26).
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Certainly, as I said earlier, the Golden Rule requires that we tolerate these beliefs, so that our different beliefs can be tolerated in return. Everyone considers their particular beliefs to be absolute truth, but believing this to be so doesn't make it so. Nor could it, since this would mean nearly all "absolute truths" must be wrong, no matter which one is selected.

It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. In our finiteness we don't fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.

These theological concerns lie outside the scope and competence of science to address. If you are happy with the teachings of your scriptures, then I am happy for you. However, most people realize that theological scripture is intended for moral rectitude, NOT for the study of natural history. Science is not necessarily incompatible with a minimally sophisticated grasp of your faith, so you aren't threatened by it.

REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

And this evidence, unfortunately, consists of nothing except a scripture that a majority of people don't accept as being literally true. Sagan's claims have something extraordinary backing them: they can be tested and falsified. This makes Sagan's claims scientific. It also implies that someone like Sagan can do something "true" (scriptural) faith prohibits - he can change his mind and admit error when evidence indicates he's wrong. This one capability, all by itself, is the touchstone of distinction between science and faith. Moreover, it is what has enable science to make fabulous advances when "common sense" got essentially nowhere for tens of thousands of years. The ability to adapt, to admit error, to change when evidence indicates, to respect evidence itself, is where science gets its power.

There are some people who would rather be certain than correct (like those who spout scripture rather than thought), and those like Sagan who would rather be correct than certain, even though it means admitting error on a regular basis.

[DudeAlmighty]

Thanks, I'll compose a reply and get back to you!

[epepke]

<I'm not an expert-I'm seventeen for crying out loud. If anyone who has greater expertise on this would like to comment, please do.>

Your high school sucks. It's probably not your fault, as all of them seem to suck these days, but you should have been exposed to the Second Law of Thermodynamics by age 16. Oh, well. I'm not going to mince words; I'm just going to tell you the facts. It's up to you to reword them.

The Second Law states that if you put something hot next to something cold, heat will flow more from the hot thing to the cold thing than in the opposite direction. And the converse. If you put a lukewarm thing next to a lukewarm thing, then it's unlikely that one will spontaneously start to boil and the other start to freeze.

Now, you may wonder why someone may think this makes evolution impossible. You can probably guess the overall reason--because they're stupid. This is correct, but it's slightly more nuanced than that, though. Since a century and a half ago, temperature and heat have been understood as the statistical result of a bunch of molecules bouncing around. When they bounce fast, the temperature is high. This leads to the idea that the Second Law might apply to other statistical situations, such as exist in information theory. Which is right. There's a concept called entropy, which is formulated a bit differently in information theory than it is in thermodynamics. In any event, the idea is that in a closed system, the entropy will never decrease (statistally speaking, though there might be some fluctuations).

In order to try to teach, people sometimes use metaphors. Metaphors can be enlightening or dangerous depending on how they are used. Sometimes teachers use the metaphor "disorder" to describe entropy.

So, now, our very stupid person decides that since he can see more order in life than in a ball of gas, that this means more "order" and therefore less "entropy" and therefore concluded that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is extremely stupid indeed, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, that person probably has a thing called a refrigerator in his and/or her house. This might seem to a stupid person to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics even more dramatically than life does. However, the refrigerator is a heat engine running backward. It can make local differences in temperature but only at the expense of increasing entropy overall. The same thing is true of an automobile engine, which is a heat engine running forward.

Now, the Second Law does put limits on the efficiency of such an engine, but evolution viewed as an engine is so ridiculously inefficient that it wouldn't even be worth it to calculate anything. Note that evolution by natural selection is an engine; it's a process that relies on differences in environment, including differences made by creatures themselves, to do a kind of work that manifests itself as evolution.

Second of all, none of the individual processes involved in evolution, none of the chemical changes, etc. violate the Second Law at all.

Third of all, every computational system acts in accordance with the Second Law.

Fourth of all, nearly every computational system (excluding some reversible computation engines) makes use of the Second Law to do work. This includes the human brain. It would also necessarily include any form of intelligent design. But the naive and stupid apprehension of the Second Law would work agains such things as much as evolution or refrigerators.

[Kingreaper]

Lot's of Scientific evidence and Biblical proof regarding God as Creator.

Quote
The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions."
I'll skip this cause I have no idea what "great demotions" refers to



Has science shown the Bible to be untrue
As much as it has shown nuclear fission to be possible





and that the earth and man are insignificant
significance is a subjective concept, something is significant TO another thing

The Earth and man are significant to almost every human being



random combinations of molecules
The laws of physics demostrate the non-randomness of the configurations that subatomic particles form



near a remote star
For something to be remote it must be distant from either the person creating the message or the one receiving it. Seen asw both fit into a category you stated was near to this star your statement is a logical contradiction which you can no more expect science to prove than that the entire universe is a square circle (in the traditional euclidian meanings of both words)



in a vast,
Vast is a subjective term, but I'm guessing everyone likely to read this would agree that the billions of light-years observed would count

In fact even a hundedth of that, which is a significant (although possible) margin of error, would still be considered vast



uncaring universe?
You drive an uncaring car to work

You type at an uncaring computer

You eat uncaring food

You wear uncaring clothes

Unless you are some sortr of universal gaian you believe the universe is inanimate and thus uncaring




I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth.
Thats something at least



However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.
I see no reason for that belief, but it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe that, so I'll just nod condescendingly and say "good for you"



The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth.
The sentence "The Kingreaper killed the fundie with his shotgun" nowhere says that The Kingreaper has a shotgun, but it most definitely conveys that information




It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.
But these terms come from a time when it was believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, they're meanings are defined and ingrained into the language already, whats the Bible's excuse?




In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . . "
And thats an amazing insight?

In a place with low light pollution I can see too many stars to count, before light pollution became such a problem it woulod have been even harder to count them




Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe.
After 25 years opf trying to find proofs for fermats last theorem should they have given up?

After 25 years trying to find proof of atoms? (which took several thousand years all in all)

After 25 years trying to find an explanation for earthquakes?

After 25 years trying to circumnavigate the globe?

25 years is nothing



(Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth."
I wouldn't go so far as unique

More likely it's just rather rare

And anyway, if there had been a race identical to us 10,000 light years away, 10,000 years ago. we probably wouldn't know about it


Einstein's theories of relativity and the great ages of our solar system and universe both have yet to be proven.
The evidence found in radioactive isotopes points to a great age for the Earth

Proof is not a matter for science

The ToR happens to be one of those theories I hope is wrong, and aim to prove wrong, but it's an exceedingly good model anyway


If relativity can be shown to be true, some believe the effect could possibly explain the apparent great times of light traveling from distant stars.[2]
And those people are wrong

If relativity was WRONG the light could be younger (my pet replacement hypothesis would decrease the traqvel time in a way I can't calculate [although there is already enough evidence to know that that hypothesis wouldn't come anywhere near the YEC timeline])



The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all.
You can't swtart in the middle of an extended metaphor i you want people to believe it's your own work (and if it is your own work, you're obviously an extremely bad writer to start in the middle of an extended metaphor)


It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics,
Not if you actually understand the second law of thermodynamics (note, for example. the "thermodynamics" bit, while it tends to apply to other areas, its law status in them is far from certain)


cannot be supported by the fossil record,
Unless you look at the fossil record


violates common sense in the development of complex systems,
Which explains why engineers have used its principles in preference to "intelligent" methods :confused:



and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

Why not?



These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.
So instead of using theories that are very slightly imperfect in ways that are slightly counterintuitive, he should pray for enlightenment?

Tht'll get us technological advancement :confused:





God has declared our standing as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
The non-existant firmament declares God's existence?





"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . (Genesis 1:26).
So there are multiple god's? And theyt're humanoid?



"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Why bother doing it the hard way?@ he could have done forgiveness with no torture, he's meant to be omnipotent





It is evident from only these few selected Scripture passages that God created the universe and cares for us to the point of providing His own Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
Only if you assume they're true

And why does God need to sacrifice anything? He's meant to be Omnipotent, or at least (as wiploc calls it) Punk Omnipotent, not super-duper-potent not mega-potent, omnipotent




In our finiteness we don't fully understand an infinite God, but how dare we arrogantly deny such a God.
HOW DARE YOU DENY THE IPU, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, OR THE KINGREAPER, THE GRAND DESTROYER





REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

This point of view among so many scientists today is described in Romans 1:20: "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." Dr. Sagan has rejected out of hand the evidences he has clearly seen for design in the universe. Although he has expressed a reluctant need to find a Designer, he has given up on the search and has constructed his own "Tower of Babel."


What evidences?

WTF with the "tower of Babel" reference, the ToB was an attempt to prove God's existence, and have a chat with him

[DudeAlmighty]

Okay, here we go: An advanced apology to Flint and Atheos for copying much of their words and a hearty thank you too.

epepke, thank you for the heads up on Thermodynamics.

kingreaper, your post was excellent and thank you, but by the time I read it, I had already composed my response and it would take even longer to incorporate your arguments too. Thank you kindly for the response though.

here it is:



The crux of Sagan's arguments is the validity of his "great demotions." Has science shown the Bible to be untrue and that the earth and man are insignificant random combinations of molecules near a remote star in a vast, uncaring universe? I do not believe that the sun revolves around the earth. However, I strongly hold to the view that man is at the center of God's care and concern, if not very near the center of His creation.

Has science shown the Bible to be untrue

science requires that assertions be proven, because otherwise, a scientist could declare that Santa exists, and this, according the quote, would have to be accepted as fact until 'proven otherwise'.

random combinations of molecules

But we highly non-random combinations of molecules.

a vast, uncaring universe?

A personification of a non-living entitiy. Indeed, the universe is much more like a cold, calculating machine.

The Bible nowhere says that the sun revolves around the earth. It simply uses the common everyday reference system we are all familiar with when referring to the motions of the sun. References to sunrise and sunset appear in the newspaper each day, and there is no difficulty in understanding their meaning. Similar terms are used in surveying, nautical navigation, even orbital mechanics. They communicate information just as does the Bible.

A few things about biblical creation:

First, it made clear a 'firmament', a roof or celing in the sky. We now know this to be untrue. As well, it also gives examples of the sun 'standing still' or even moving backwards (Joshua 10 for example) which is NOT corroborated by any other civilisation. Such a significant event would have no doubt warranted record or note in other civilisations, no?

In addition, the Bible describes the earth as "resting on four pillars" and having "four corners". The reference to a tree so tall it could be seen from all the Earth (in Daniel) all of which point to the Bible supporting a Flat Earth, as could be expected from a pre-tech civilisation.

Unless the writer is willing to also defend Flat-Earth theory, the use of the Bible as a scientific or historic document is not really advisable.

In the covenant with Abraham God implied that there is a myriad of stars in the universe. He said, "look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . . "Sagan believes some of these stars may have planets circling them with life on them. However, Sagan recently admitted in a radio interview that after 25 years of searching for intelligent life, he has been unable to find evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. (Sagan has stated that he would even be happy to find stupid life.) He went so far as to say, "there must be something unique about the earth."

Sagan is entitled to his belief. However, he one day be proven wrong.


The theory of evolution is the greatest house of cards of all. It flies in the face of the well-founded Second Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be supported by the fossil record, violates common sense in the development of complex systems, and could not even occur in 15 billion years.

No it does not, this is flatly wrong. Even Answers in Genesis advises against using this argument as it is so roundly refuted. One of evolution's primary purposes was to *explain* the fossil record, thus the fossil record was the key evidence on which the theory was based.

The assertion it could not have occured in 15billion years is flatly untrue. If anything there is wonder why it has progressed so slowly, considering biological change (such as speciation) progresses rapidly when it does occur.

These "great demotions" then are the result of misapplying faulty theories rather than validating God's statements in Scripture regarding our position and purpose.

This is said after a chain of incorrect statements, as though human intelligence and evidence don't matter. The theories continue to make accurate predictions, so they can't be 'faulty' in any way. The alternative is that either scripture is faulty or their interpretation.

REACTIONS
Dr. Sagan is an excellent writer and public speaker. He has a very engaging writing style and dares to discuss controversial issues. His Cosmos series and book sold more copies than any science book ever written in English. He has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writing. However, he is wrong. Carl Sagan is blinded to the evidence that God exists and created man as His special object of love and concern.

Carl Sagan is not 'blinded' in essence, to any evidence. If such evidence were bountiful to the point where one would need to blind oneself, surely Creation would be a more readily accepted and easily proven theory, surely?

In addition, Carl Sagan has a distinct advantage: His claims can be tested and falsified where new evidence comes to light and has the luxury of admitting where he is wrong and changing his mind as and when new evidence comes to light, whereas scripture must remain rocksteady. This adaptibility is where science shines over faith, as it is readily capable of admitting error and changing to suit new evidence.

[DudeAlmighty]

It seems I annoyed somebody...

You atheists pretend like science answers everything.
I have some questions for you.

1. Where did every molecule in the universe come from?

2. Where does the universe end?

3. What is matter?

4. What is energy?

5. Why are objects attracted to each other? Why does light shine? Why is matter solid? Why does energy move things?

Care to answer all these questions with science? Science can answer all these questions, can't it? After all, can't science answer everything?

to which I replied:

Quote
You atheists pretend like science answers everything.


"You atheists"? I apologise, as it seems I have stepped on your toes. Please tell me where I presume to know everything/claim science knows and answers everything. I apologise if my response made you angry, but the quote was misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Your questions seem to be an attempt to gratify some kind of anger toward my earlier post. I cannot answer them, nor will I pretend to. In the first to cases, where do molecules come from, and where does the universe end are absurdly abstract questions. since scientists (and theists too) can't agree on how the Universe started in the first place, the first question is meaningless. And the second, exactly why are you assuming the universe has 'ends'? How do you know it has 'ends'? How do you know it isn't simply infinite in all directions?

Quote

3. What is matter?

4. What is energy?

5. Why are objects attracted to each other? Why does light shine? Why is matter solid? Why does energy move things?


Since I am not an expert in physics or quantum mechanics or string theory, I suggest you direct those questions, if they were serious, to a professional. Why not email Stephen Hawking? Or simply ask a teacher?

Quote
Care to answer all these questions with science? Science can answer all these questions, can't it? After all, can't science answer everything?


I don't understand why you are hostile. SA started this thread, and he seemed amicable. My intention was not to throw science in anyone's faces, but to refute an article that was mistaken.

Science can't answer all these questions. Science can't answer everything. No one has ever said this, and I certainly never implied it. Please refrain from such attacks. I try to be civil and have not been insulting to anyone here. I resent your insinuation that I am a know-it-all.

Maybe that is how some theists feel on this board when they are subject to hostility. Just as well I reigned my tongue, I was tempted to say some sarky things. Obnoxious ...

[epepke]

It seems I annoyed somebody...

3. What is matter?

4. What is energy?

5. Why are objects attracted to each other? Why does light shine? Why is matter solid? Why does energy move things?

Well, just for fun:

Matter and energy are different manifestations of a thing called energy/momentum, which people have known about for 90 years.

I don't know which objects attracted to each other are being referred to. The electroweak force and the strong force are mediated by particles. In GR, gravitation is a property of the curvature of space.

Light consists of photons. They go where they're going.

Matter seems solid because electrons in matter, which are on the outside of atoms, repel other electrons. This repulsion is mediated by photons and is called the electromagnetic force. It's a subset of the electroweak force.

Energy doesn't move things per se. Force moves things. Energy can be used to do work, according to the laws of thermodynamics. Work can be used to apply a force.

[Tzar Bomba]

<snip>
In order to try to teach, people sometimes use metaphors. Metaphors can be enlightening or dangerous depending on how they are used. Sometimes teachers use the metaphor "disorder" to describe entropy.

So, now, our very stupid person decides that since he can see more order in life than in a ball of gas, that this means more "order" and therefore less "entropy" and therefore concluded that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is extremely stupid indeed, for a variety of reasons.
<snip>I agree with you completely. I have always resented that metaphor, because it is completely untrue.

A warm ball of gas is no more disorderly than a cold one, it's component atoms are just moving faster. If a snapshot could be taken of the particles in each ball of gas at a single instant in time, the cold one would be indistinguishable from the warm one.

A better metaphor would be to describe the entropy component of the Second Law of Thermo as "unrecoverability." That is, the increase in entropy with time in a thermal system is identical to the amount of energy that cannot be recovered by any means.

For example, if a steam engine was used to pump water uphill, a very complex exchange of energy would take place. If we performed a Second Law analysis on the system, we would see the input of a large amount of thermal energy to the engine. Out of it would come mechanical energy which would turn the pump and increase the potential energy of the water as it went up the hill. At each point where energy is converted (the boiler, the engine, the pump, the fire) there is some heat generated that cannot be used for anything.

The fire loses some heat through the walls of the chamber, regardless how well insulated it is. The engine and pump lose energy through mechanical friction and viscosity of the fluids, and this energy comes out as useless heat. Similar losses occur in the pipe. Each of these energy losses will be shown by our Second Law analysis as an increase in entropy. Thus, the increase in entropy is exactly the same as the amount of energy input that is lost to the system forever.

You will notice that this explanation has exactly nothing to do with evolution. That is because entropy has no more effect on evolution than it has on taxes, monkeys, music, or leprechauns. Entropy is just an expression of energy loss, and it is present in the analysis of all dynamic systems. Many systems in the universe tend toward order and clustering, not randomness. For this reason, using randomness as a way of explaining entropy needs to stop.:o

Remember that there is NO GAUGE for entropy. It is just a concept we use to explain the movement of energy. It cannot be measured directly or instantaneously. It is only a way of understanding the difference between the beginning and end states of a system. Cheers. :wave: