Think Science .

I came up with this proofs after reading people’s response to some of my threads related to theology. So i decided to wrap it up on one blog post.

Ontological proof
Everything that is namable must be knowable. everything that is knowable must be being somewere. since there is a name god, it must be knowable and therefore should exists in being!

Casual proof
According to scientists life came from chemicals, but chemicals are inert and doesnt have conscious so chemicals cant create itself. it has to be created by something that is live and concious so god created us. since he is concious he dont need a creator!

Teleological proof
Everything should have a purpose so we couldnt have been created by accident we must have been made puposefully by a creator so god exists!

Design proof
The complexity of nature cant have occured by fluke. it certainly shows the hand of a superior intelligence. so it has to be God.

Moral proof
there should be morality so God should exists..

(err.. there was more but i couldn’t think of it now. If you know more then do let me know).

The problem is the philosophical argument of “causality” in which every event can be traced to a specific cause… and the obvious logic flaw in causality is the “First Cause” which, according to causality, would itself require a cause.

It goes something like this: “Everything requires a cause, therefore the universe couldn”t exist without God to create it.” … with the counter argument … “In that case, God couldn’t exist unless something created HIM.”

Not to leave the secular humanists out… “What caused the ‘Big Bang’?”

The amusing thing is that both arguments are guilty of the exact same flawed logic they accuse the other of having… Picking an arbitrary point and stating, “This is where everything starts.” Nothing wrong with doing that, unless you attempt to state that your arbitrary point is the only point that is valid… which both sides do with amazing regularity. Never said the failure itself was a problem with science, however the “universally acceptance” of any theory or idea is a failure in science.

Abiogenesis simply that the life here on earth once came into existence from non-living (and replicating) things. Theists who criticize Abiogenesis, should, by the way, know that creationism too is a type of Abiogenesis. God created life from non-life. Abiogenesis is a fact, regardless of how we think it happened. There are many theories and we’re still trying to crack the code. The theory which I find convincing (well, yeah I haven’t read many either) is given by a Scottish Chemist, Cairns Smith. Although I haven’t read his book, R. Dawkins describes his theory at quite a length. A fan site explains the theory very nicely.

[http://originoflife.net/]

For anyone interested, Cairns Smith was written a book “Seven clues to the Origins of Life”. The book is presented in a Sherlock Holmes kind of a mystery. For people who are seriously in this field, There’s a book “Genetic Takeover” by the same author.

Consider a large library. Let us assume that the books are neatly arranged in the beginning. Now, you open the library and people start coming in, take books, read, return, and they do not, in most cases, return it to the exact section from which they took it.

It is immediately obvious that, assuming no one from the staff comes and puts the books in orderly condition again, the number of possible combination’s in which the library will be messed up is always far far more than the number of possible combination’s in which it will be neat, like before.

This, to put it simply, the second law of Thermodynamics. Any system (here, library) which is isolated from external energy (here, staff members don’t re-arrange the books) will never decrease in entropy (here, the disorder of the books), it’s entropy will either remain the same or increase (since the total number of combination’s which result in disorder are always far more than the total number of combination’s which result in orderliness).

This makes many people (mostly creationists) think that the theory of evolution is false since any system (here, earth) kept on its own will always tend to increase in its entropy and, therefore, life cannot evolve. (Life is information neatly stored, opposite of high entropy)

But, the Earth is not an Isolated system. Earth continuously receives energy from the sun. Apart from that, unlike what most creationists think, Evolution via natural selection is not a random process. Infact, Natural Selection is the complete opposite of randomness.

Birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. DNA tests have proven it so. There is a growing belief in the scientific community that the “extinction” of the dinosaurs was not caused by an outside ELE, but rather caused by the decrease in atmospheric oxygen levels, which was itself caused by the the massive decrease in plantlife due to herbavore overpopulation. This is supported by the fact that the dinosaurs did not “die overnight”… but rather over a period of 3-5 million years of population decline.

Feathers are known to be a trait shared only with endothermic organisms. Their initial purpose, as early feather fossils have shown, could only be for holding in body heat. That means that only endotherms would develop feathers. Since several dinosaurs are known to have possessed feathers they could not have been ectotherms.

We know that some fish are endothermic - tuna, for instance. Some sharks are also endothermic to a degree. I theorize that it was these warm blooded fish who made it onto land and became theropods. Thus, my theory is that theropods were “birds” and never reptiles. As far as the land dinosaurs go, they really weren’t all that large. The T-Rex, for instance, weighed on average about 7 tons. This makes it’s size about on par with that of the Mammoth which averages about 8 tons.