Many atheists believe matter and energy originated from nothing. But the First Law of Thermodynamics states matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed, " thus atheists violate this Law of Science.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states a system (like the Universe) will go from Order to Disorder over time. But atheists argue the Universe went from chaos and disorder (a big bang) to an orderly Universe.
Atheists believe living organisms first arose from nonliving matter. However the Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Theory states: "Life only comes from life." Thus atheists violate these foundations of Biology.
The Law of Causality states: Every effect must have a cause. "Atheists would argue there was a cause for a pencil, but they argue there was no cause for people. Thus atheists violate the Law of Causality.
2007-06-04 04:53:09 · 23 answers · asked by Dwayne 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Faith in GOD is much greater than faith in science. Jesus promised eternal life to all who believe in him and live according to his teachings. Science cannot save your eternal soul, it can simply helps society but cannot fufill your destiny. Your soul is eternal and you either going to heaven or hell. The decision is yours because Christ give you the priviledge to be saved. So, accept Christ into your life and live accordingly so you can scape the damnation of hell.
2007-06-04 05:01:28 · answer #1 · answered by dimitri 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sigh, yet another "barely high school level" of understanding of science using the very causal definitions of the Laws of thermodynamics to create a pseudo-science argument. In reality, the second law of thermodynamics supports ordered systems such as molecules, planets, life etc. As far as Causality, evolution and it's mechanism "caused" (this is a very loose statement, formal causes would take a very long book(s)) the current organisms on this earth.
If you're going to use science to argue against itself then you really need to know what you're talking about. Oh and yes, scientists do argue with each other, it's called a peer review of findings...
2007-06-04 05:06:55 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nope.
First of all, what does atheism have to do with science?
The Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to QUANTUM physics, which is where the Big Bang lies.
Biogenesis ITSELF contradicts the "Law of Causality." (which is not a law at all) The only way biogenesis can be correct is if there was ALWAYS life (because 'other life' can't appear without there being some form of life for it to come from), and if there was ALWAYS life, then LIFE is uncaused. Way to have your arguments collapse on themselves, like a house of cards.
If the evidence goes against an established theory, so be it. Unlike the mindset of theists, no scientific theory is infallible--they're all falsifiable. If they weren't, they wouldn't be scientific, since that's one of the requirements. So saying that something is wrong just because it contradicts a scientific theory is nothing more than you trying to apply your "anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong" way of thinking to science. Sorry, it doesn't apply. We follow the evidence, wherever it goes.
2007-06-04 04:55:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
This atheist believes in things that can be proven by experiment! This atheist 'accepts' certain things, as far as they are known, while also accepting that knowledge is an ongoing thing, and that certain beliefs may have to be altered or even discarded as more is learned of them. This atheist keeps an open mind! This atheist does not take the easy way by accepting that the answer to EVERYTHING is already at hand, and can be laid at the feet of 'god'!
2007-06-04 05:03:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one thinks that.
You really should ask us what we think and stop listening to what other idiots tell you. You guys spend 90% of your time arguing against things that no one ever said.
And FYI: There are several things that happen that don't have a cause. Those laws break down if you stretch the conditions far enough. There is no Law of Causality.
The second law only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system.
The life thing you are so far off on it isn't even worth addressing. There is no such law and they can build viruses in the lab. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1072266v1
2007-06-04 04:55:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Why do you use science to make a point to discredit and take only bits of science where it suites your agenda. The thing about science its only agenda is the thruth, when we label truth to a sect or non sect we loose. We cant look to accept whats true when it fits our agenda we have to be able to admit we might have made some mistakes along the way and be able to accept truth when we see it! Close minds stays in one room and when its time to take a dump, dumps in the room where the door remains shut. Eventually they starve and die in thier own dump, when they are in a Mansion!
2007-06-04 05:09:22 · answer #6 · answered by Urntrede frdtrut 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is one of the most important question an athiest can answer for Christians and all they can do is respond with their typical insults. They love to throw the guantlet themselves, but when it's thrown at them, they can't fight back.
Most of them are accusing you of what they do to Christians all the time. That is, tearing down a false understanding of Christianity.
2007-06-04 05:08:02 · answer #7 · answered by Thom 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wish those of us who call ourselves Christians would read a little before just spouting off what some high school pastor tells them. Talk to you biology teacher about these. You are getting all the arguments wrong and making us Christians sound ignorant.
2007-06-04 04:58:39 · answer #8 · answered by Love Shepherd 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If something cannot come from nothing,where did god get the dirt to create human life?
It requires no faith to be an atheist
2007-06-04 04:57:16 · answer #9 · answered by rosbif 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Evolutionists say: ‘Evolution is a fact; God is a myth.’ They have proof for neither, but prejudice needs no proof.
2007-06-04 05:08:59 · answer #10 · answered by izofblue37 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋