That doesn't answer the question "why" "Oxidation" is HOW things decay. Why do things have to be destroyed in order for there to be "balance?" And how is the universe balanced when there is entropy in everything? Because the universe is in a constant state of decay, when was the universe in the perfect state? And how did it get there?
Go read any low level science book for your answers. I don't have the time to teach you the workings of the natural world. This is nothing mystical or magical. Ignorance of the workings of the universe does not = the existance of a "divine being".
So in other words, you don't know when the universe was in a perfect state or how it got there. You also don't know how a universe ruled by entropy can be balanced. By definition that's impossible. According to the natural laws the universe will be destroyed eventually. What happens then? Does the law of entropy go away and we get a brand new universe? Where did all the energy in the universe come from? How does energy spontaniously become matter?
You didn't answer my question: KalvinB, why do stars explode? Why do atoms decay? Why does the vaccum of space occasionally split into particle-antiparticle pairs? Is that sin at work, too? Why is there entropy? Don't know myself, but look up Brian Greene's latest book on amazon if you are seriously interested in these kind of questions. Fascinating stuff. Current thinking is that the universe was a singularity - in a high entropy state - about 15 billion years ago. How it got there? We don't know. Strictly speaking, the universe, at its "death", will be in a state of low entropy. Don't know; don't know; don't know. PS. "Don't know" does not automatically mean "Goddidit". It simply means: we don't know.
You didn't answer my question: KalvinB, why do stars explode? Why do atoms decay? Why does the vaccum of space occasionally split into particle-antiparticle pairs? Is that sin at work, too? Flawed. Where have I demonstrated in my above post that science is a religion? All I have stated is that we do not know. Religion says we know that Goddidit, but cannot prove it. All I have admitted is that we do not know many fundamental things about our universe. I maintain that critical analysis of the observable universe through the scientific method is the only way we can get close to answering the fundamental questions you pose.
I already answered your question. I don't know why you keep repeating yourself. I'm not going to repeat myself. It's not like you can't just go back and reread what you didn't understand the first time around. You admitted science is a religion when you continually state "we don't know" and yet there's no shortage of literature making up stuff to answer the questions I pose. It doesn't matter if your religion is God centric or science centric, it's all religion when "you don't know" and yet insist on making stuff up as though you could possibly know.
Apparently you can't tell the difference between a hypothesis and bullshit. Scientists posit ideas on possible answers to the questions you pose, then expound to find the probable results of that hypothesis. Then they TEST them versus reality, or at least pose a model for testing them, discarding outright or adjusting anything that doesn't fit. That's considerably different than an unchanging worldview that appeals to magic, gives no method of testing, fails to actually explain ANYTHING, and is wildly inconsistent with observations of the world.
And when it comes to things you can't possibly know the best you can do is come up with a really good story. It doesn't matter how well it "fits the known data," it's still BS. "Science" relies on way too many assumptions to be believable for anything but we can actually observe and test. Where this whole thing started can neither be observed nor tested. Therefore, it's a fairy tale no matter how good it sounds. The Big Bang is just as believable as the Flying Speghetti Monster and just as provable.
Where did you answer the questions? Oh wait, your answer is "Goddidit", right? I find it remarkable who you attack things you know nothing about, but can happily maintain that there is "sin" in the world without positing a single piece of evidence for its existence. Also, I find it amusing that you keep on talking of "fairy tales", yet yours is the religion which contains talking snakes and unicorns.
Are you really THAT retarded? GRAVITY is just a "really good story." We can't prove in absolute terms that gravity exists, it just happens to fit the evidence we have INCREDIBLY WELL. Whether or not a theory fits the evidence is paramount in testing that theory's validity. Evolution fits the evidence and does so better than any competing theory, meaning that it is scientifically more accurate and more useful. Show me the BS. Show me where evolution fails to fit the facts. You can't. We assume that we have accurate data, we build and test a model based on that data, and we form a conclusion about that model's accuracy. You, on the other hand, deny a theory which fits the evidence, propose untestable bullshit, and then cap it all off by acting as though this is somehow evidence for a different theory. Except we CAN directly test models versus reality and choose the most accurate as the accepted model, match predicted outcomes such a model would generate against reality, then apply that model to other fields and generate direct results. I would accuse you of lying at this point, but your oughtright ignorance convinces me that you simply don't care to look at anything you disagree with. You're the one who shuts out reality. The Big Bang is quite a bit more provable, thanks.
I am not impressed with most Christian preachers, never will be. It is sad how some people just move up to become what is considered God´s voice. But nevertheless, you should not justify anyone´s wrongdoing. Even if it helps you ¨get back¨ at those who annoy you, even if it´s Christian preachers. Mike
Because knowledge has to be earned. The words of the Bible simply remain on the tips of this evil mans fork-ed tongue - never once penetrating his black heart. And his followers, well, there will always be followers, but: Luk 17:1 ¶ Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come! v2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. And I wonder if this does not, perhaps, approach the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" which will never be forgiven? Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. For is not the Holy Spirit the messenger? And is not this man spreading hatred in His name as a self-proclaimed messenger of God? Is this man not "betraying" Jesus with his message of hate? And is he not causing others who follow him, the simpletons that they apparently are, to sin in his name? I'd like to tell this guy, 'Jack-face, if I were you I'd start repenting and I mean NOW!!!' As for the homosexual part, "me thinks he doth protesteth overmuch."
Snakes and serpents, repent now or else!!!! I can't believe anyone buys into this crap in the 21st century.
Nice strawman. No one was talking about gravity. I can observe gravity. No one has observed the evolution of man over millions of years. I've noticed that when confronted by simple logic, Evolutionists burst into a chorus of stupid ranting out observed science during the course of human history assuming that anyone who rejects evolution rejects recorded history while ignoring the real topic which is what happened prior to recorded human history. All of that is extrapolated science. The unobservable, the fairy tales. That's what I question. Evolutionists are too close minded to question that though. So they try to change the topic.
The 21st Century is but a hair on the ass of time. And, especially now, know-it-all, when we need them most, like the old song says: "The fundamental things apply..."
Spend your time praying to god, i'll be enjoying my life living every day to the fullest, not wasting it away wondering what happens when I die. Chances are you just rot in the ground......
I agree wholeheartedly. It was far better back when we were sacrificing animals to please the Gods. These newfangled "monotheistic" religions and this "science" malarkey don't hold a torch to the wonderful smell of burnt pig flesh. Anyone who has enjoyed a hearty full English breakfast will agree.
Nice strawman, yourself. That part of my argument doesn't deal with direct observation. It deals with consistency with reality, which you completely ignore. In case you were really too stupid to get it the first time, a theory is validated if it's extrapolations match the existing evidence. You continue to ignore this while throwing up the same idiotic rant over and over. Just in case you really don't get it, let me restate the point. If a theory fits the known data, that theory is probably accurate. In any case, there isn't any theory that fits the data better than evolution. Then according to your profound anti-logic, gravity is false wherever we don't directly observe it. Do you honestly fail to grasp how ridiculous that is? You're the one who ignores evidence and plugs his ears while ranting "NOOOOOOOOO!!!! EXTRAPOLATION BAD!!!!!!" Furthermore, you ignore: Instead, you plug your ears, throw up your hands, and pretend that I strawman you instead of addressing anything I've said. Then you ignore this: Nice attempt. I really should give you credit for all the effort you spent ignoring well over half my post in order to take me out of context and strawman me while pretending to play the victim. Either address my arguments or shut up.