The fact of the matter is, the definition of God has become so diverse it`s hard to keep track. I (and many other atheists) have stuck to the boring old traditional definition. That is, God is a being that is all powerful (nothing is impossible for him - again assuming it is a him), it`s all knowing, and all benevolent (he actually cares about us). This pretty much covers all the world religions. I can`t help but put this definition of God into the form of a syllogism. That is if God (with the formentioned characteristics) then... the world wouldn`t be quite as decadent. Does a sinner have any less free will than a saint? I`d assume all humans have equal amounts of free will (if you believe we`re actually free at all)... so why then did God find it difficult to create all humans saints, retaining free will but having a natural inclination to perform good works.

You`re definition of God seems far broader - essentially something outside of the universe that keeps everything together, or harmonious. That need not be a being or even conscious or any of the above all powerful all benevolent all compassionate traits. It could be some unknown force, power, whatever. But that in itself doesn`t begin to provide support for christianity or any of the other world religions. I`ve also heard of considerable evidence for the possibility that the universe could be an open system. If that`s the case, the 2nd law (the overall entropy in a closed system cannot decrease) doesn`t apply. Basically the universe will expand indefinitely and become infinitley thinned out.

Ops. I just realized that i assumed that you`re christian or subscribe to one of the major religions. Oh well.

Of course physics isn`t my subject... i`m a bio major. Plus, this anti-evolution movement is very discouraging, i don`t have the time or zeal that used to, to produce those volumes of anti-creationist postings again. If interested, simply visit old posts. No offense, but it just gets redundant having to repeat the same arguments over and over and over, etc. Lather, rinse repeat. Basically most of the arguments center around misconceptions of evolution. Common misconceptions: 1) evolution is random: it isn`t, mutations are random (producing variation) but they are SELECTED by nature. Hence "natural selection" occurs when nature picks out certain characteristics that are favorable. 2) evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics: yeah, those damn physicists are always competing with us biologists for government grants. No, the second laws states that the OVERALL entropy (unusable energy) in a CLOSED system cannot decrease. The earth isn`t a closed system, plus if entropy increased in every reaction all the time, we wouldn`t see things like snow flakes or tornadoes.
Heck, no machine would ever work, because that`s what a machine does, temporarily decreases entropy locally. 3) humans evolved from apes: nope. humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

"It is just as respectible to be exaulted dirt, as it is be an exaulted monkey"-some famous guy, but his name escapes me.

Aaaaaanyway, this feeble primate is ready to move on to more interesting things.

• RE: I`m ranting... sorry, i get carried away - Sam - April 7, 2000 - 02:03 UTC
  • yup evolution is on shakey ground... bloody house of cards - tenacious - April 8, 2000 - 00:32 UTC
  • yup evolution is on shakey ground... bloody house of cards - tenacious - April 8, 2000 - 00:33 UTC
    • allow me to clairify - tenacious - April 8, 2000 - 00:41 UTC
      • RE: allow me to clairify - like butter - April 9, 2000 - 06:23 UTC
    • RE: yup evolution is on shakey ground... bloody house of cards - Sam - April 13, 2000 - 03:33 UTC
      • RE: RE: yup evolution is on shakey ground... bloody house of cards - Phil.O.Sofir - April 14, 2000 - 11:59 UTC
      • Thou art criticizing thy own misconception of evolution friend - tenacious - April 14, 2000 - 23:53 UTC