- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:51 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:51 pm to northshorebamaman
My fridge ice maker has been broke for 3 years but suddenly started working today.
Your move, second law of thermodynamics.
Your move, second law of thermodynamics.
1
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:58 pm to GRTiger
quote:Right.
I don't think we are apart here. We just came at it from different angles.
Atheists love to construct their anti-theist arguments in "prove-it" terms.
They HATE reciprocity along those lines.
I couldn't care less ... until they attempt to ally with science. Science is neither theist nor atheist. It is agnostic.
As a science-enveloped individual, I take no quarter with those attempting to falsely invoke the field.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:01 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:100%
evolutionary theory, as a scientific model, explains biological change using testable mechanisms. Questions about divine intervention are philosophical or theological. They’re not refutations of the biological framework itself.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:06 pm to GRTiger
quote:If you're assuming evolution = spontaneous order in an isolated system, that assumption is wrong.
My fridge ice maker has been broke for 3 years but suddenly started working today.
Your move, second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems. Your fridge, and the Earth, are not isolated systems. They exchange energy with their surroundings.
Ice makers can start working again because components shift, ice melts, lines clear, temperatures change. None of that violates thermodynamics.
Likewise, local decreases in entropy are completely consistent with the second law as long as the total entropy of the larger system increases. That’s why refrigerators work at all.
If you’re suggesting biological complexity violates the second law, that’s a common misunderstanding. The Earth receives a constant influx of low-entropy energy from the sun. That’s what powers life.
So if there’s a different thermodynamics argument you’re making, spell it out.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:08 pm to northshorebamaman
I didn't see such a serious response coming 
I don't actually think my ice maker broke physics, baw. I'm just thrilled to have ice water again.
I don't actually think my ice maker broke physics, baw. I'm just thrilled to have ice water again.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:09 pm to RebelExpress38
life cannot create itself
life did not pop into existence from nothing
it's that simple
We were created by God
life did not pop into existence from nothing
it's that simple
We were created by God
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:13 pm to GRTiger
I mean, it might be wrong, but it's an argument that I haven't heard before, so I took it seriously.Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:18 pm to northshorebamaman
I very much appreciated the thoughtful reply. I just wasn't prepared to defend my silliness
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:23 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
The pure mathematical impossibility of humans being randomly formed makes that position one of the least scientific positions a person can have.
If you believe in math then you believe in infinity. If you believe in infinity then it is a mathematical certainty that humans would eventually be “randomly” formed. That’s Murphy’s law in a nutshell
If you believe in God then you also believe in math and infinity which means that humans can still “randomly” be formed.
Maybe God is life and creation and infinity all wrapped up into everything. Maybe there was never a beginning maybe existence always was. Maybe the universe expands into infinite nothingness until it can’t expand anymore then it starts to compress its self back into a single relative point and then it explodes back into everything and we are just stuck in the middle of that ever going process.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:25 pm to High Life
Wouldn't infinite possibilities generate infinite intelligent species? As I understand infinity, there should be an infinite number of you and me.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:33 pm to NC_Tigah
I followed the earlier pages on atheist vs agnostic and didn’t jump in because those etymology debates usually muddy more than they clarify around this subject.
For what it’s worth, I do agree that a strong, positive claim that “God does not exist” carries a kind of faith element in the sense that it’s not falsifiable. Where I disagree is with the move by some (not saying you) to call atheism “just another religion.” That flattens meaningful distinctions.
Personally, I’m careful with the terminology and describe myself as agnostic. Not as a hedge, but because I think it’s more precise. Science operates within methodological boundaries. Metaphysical certainty in either direction goes beyond what empirical methods can adjudicate.
So my pushback in this thread isn’t about disproving religion. It’s about keeping evolutionary biology confined to what it actually claims.
For what it’s worth, I do agree that a strong, positive claim that “God does not exist” carries a kind of faith element in the sense that it’s not falsifiable. Where I disagree is with the move by some (not saying you) to call atheism “just another religion.” That flattens meaningful distinctions.
Personally, I’m careful with the terminology and describe myself as agnostic. Not as a hedge, but because I think it’s more precise. Science operates within methodological boundaries. Metaphysical certainty in either direction goes beyond what empirical methods can adjudicate.
So my pushback in this thread isn’t about disproving religion. It’s about keeping evolutionary biology confined to what it actually claims.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Life developing from single cells over 4 billion years isn’t really any more of a stretch than God just plopping down a single man and woman in a thicket somewhere.
It is not more logical either.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:38 pm to High Life
quote:
f you believe in math then you believe in infinity. If you believe in infinity then it is a mathematical certainty that humans would eventually be “randomly” formed. That’s Murphy’s law in a nutshell
First off, infinity doesn't guarantee that any specific event must occur. E.g., There are infinite even numbers, but odd numbers never appear in that sequence.
Infinite iterations of a process don't guarantee all outcomes — only outcomes that the process can actually produce.
The more rigorous mathematical concept here is that a non-zero probability event occurring given infinite trials depends heavily on the structure of the probability space, not just "infinity exists."
Second, Murphy's Law isn't a mathematical theorem. It's a colloquial saying. It doesn't do the formal work you're asking it to do here.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:41 pm to High Life
quote:I get what you’re trying to do there, but I think that line of argument concedes too much.
If you believe in math then you believe in infinity. If you believe in infinity then it is a mathematical certainty that humans would eventually be “randomly” formed. That’s Murphy’s law in a nutshell
If you believe in God then you also believe in math and infinity which means that humans can still “randomly” be formed.
Maybe God is life and creation and infinity all wrapped up into everything. Maybe there was never a beginning maybe existence always was. Maybe the universe expands into infinite nothingness until it can’t expand anymore then it starts to compress its self back into a single relative point and then it explodes back into everything and we are just stuck in the middle of that ever going process.
Evolution doesn’t claim humans were “randomly formed” in a single probabilistic event. Variation has a random component, but selection is not random. It’s cumulative and constrained over long stretches of time. So we don’t need to appeal to infinity or inevitability to answer the “mathematical impossibility” claim.
Bringing in infinity or Murphy’s Law kind of shifts the frame toward spectacle probability instead of mechanism. The stronger response, in my view, is simpler: evolution describes population-level change under measurable processes. It doesn’t require a cosmic dice roll assembling a human from scratch.
I’d rather defend the actual model than try to rescue a mischaracterization of it.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 5:44 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:Absoutely.
Where I disagree is with the move by some (not saying you) to call atheism “just another religion.”
Faith =/= Religion.
Religion is a different issue entirely.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:03 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Wouldn't infinite possibilities generate infinite intelligent species? As I understand infinity, there should be an infinite number of you and me.
Yea pretty much.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:07 pm to High Life
Do you believe there an infinite number of you?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 6:38 pm to High Life
quote:
That’s Murphy’s law in a nutshell
That’s a bullshite saying and no “law” at all.
What are laws in nature?
Laws like the laws of thermodynamics which states matter tends toward disorder.
Or the first law of thermodynamics which says energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Just the complexity of all DNA being created by right handed sugars which are produced by left-handed Amino acids makes randomness impossible. I don’t care how long you have to go when you look at how complex a single cell is it cannot randomly form just one cell let alone an entire human body.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:19 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
There are infinite even numbers, but odd numbers never appear in that sequence.
What sequence would you be referencing?
quote:
Infinite iterations of a process don't guarantee all outcomes — only outcomes that the process can actually produce.
Right infinite iterations produce all possible outcomes. And the more limited the process, program or programmer the less possibilities. But that’s assuming the program and the programmer are limited right? So what are we putting limits on first? The amount of matter in the universe, the amount of energy in the universe, the amount of nothingness in nothingness aka space, or God which may or may not be a combination of the latter.
quote:
Second, Murphy's Law isn't a mathematical theorem. It's a colloquial saying. It doesn't do the formal work you're asking it to do here.
Fair enough. I’d call it more of a philosophy that promotes forward/outward thinking which is what this topic is all about. I think Infinity holds enough weight on its own
Posted on 2/21/26 at 7:29 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I’ve never understood why the religious zealots refuse the notion that God created life through the natural processes we’ve discovered/hypothesized.
Catholic school 34 years ago I was taught by a Catholic priest that evolution is real. God didn't create everything in 7 days. The creation story is a metaphor, as are many Bible stories.
The teaching is that God loves us, he created us, he allowed it to happen through the Big Bang, evolution, whatever scientific explanation that can be given.
It was God's plan, and he allowed it to happen.
Don't know why that marriage of religion and science is so hard for people to understand.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News