[photon]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

That it does. However, some (a lot) of Christians think the best/only way to change people's minds and lives about a huge issue is to hit them over the head with it and give them the "believe or else" type of spiel. I feel for anyone who has had to be a victim of this type of "witnessing." I know I wouldn't change my religion just because someone on the street was guilt-tripping me if I didn't. I won't continue to go off-topic here, but don't lump us all together and assume that all creationists are half-crazed religious nuts blind to the real world and its facts.

I'm not lumping anyone together, the degree to which a Christian will act and the strength of their conviction may be questioned, but at its foundation it's still exclusionary.

The original comment was letting people believe something different, I only pointed out the conflict between that and the foundation of Christianity.

As an aside, wouldn't it be fair to say that those Christians who don't give the "believe it or else" message lack the courage of their convictions? If I knew a drink was poison and that you'd die if you drank it, but you believed it was fine, what lengths should I go to to intervene? I'd probably go so far as to physically restrain you or knock you out so you don't do it. How much further should one go if it's not just a life, but the eternal state of one's soul? One of the things I've been told many times with respect to "respecting others' beliefs".

I am curious, what do you consider "real" science? Even though pieces of evidence such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and say for example, the Hydroplate theory don't satisfy you, does that mean that don't really count as evidence?

Real science fits observed reality. Real science makes predictions about future observations. Real science is falsifiable (it can be disproved).

The 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't "evidence", it's a law. It describes how heat behaves, nothing more. Nothing you've provided shows HOW evolution violates the 2nd law beyond saying "it does, therefore it does". If it did, you could do tests to show it.

You would accept that evolution at some level is real correct? So why would small evolution that's acceptable to you be ok within the 2nd law, but larger evolution wouldn't?

I'd like the information gap that involves the beginning of time to be filled.

So would we all. That's why science is a pursuit of ever improving knowledge, rather than a dogmatic statement about reality that cannot be changed. We go from not even knowing there's a question to be asked, to asking the question, to finding candidates for answers, to refining those answers forever.

How did the first living organism develop from something abiotic? How did the "something abiotic" come into existence? Or was it always there?

As I said before, this has nothing at all to do with evolution. This is a question about abiogenesis. As for the answer, troutman already posted some information on it. Of course it wasn't always there, in our universe cause precedes effect so everything started at some point. As to the exact mechanism, we don't know yet.

Molecules don't leave fossils, so it's difficult to say if we'll ever truely know how life originated. If you wish to invoke God at this point, that's fine, though that's employing the God of the gaps again and as I said to me that really dimishes God, plus what happens if at a later date it WAS shown to originate naturally?

Or for the big bang theorists: what prompted the big bang to take place? How did order result from chaos?

Two different questions. First, again there's ideas as to what was "before" the big bang (if that even means anything, how can you have "before" when time didn't exist??), but similar to abiogenesis it's nowhere near certain. Second question, order from chaos results because of the nature of reality. Forces act in a specific way, particles interact in specific ways, all these things create order from chaos every day without any influence from us.

I would agree 100% with that last statement, all beliefs ARE equally valid. Some beliefs might be more informed and education-based than others but at the end of the day no one's is better than someone else's.

I asked if you agreed that not all beliefs are equally valid.

I strongly disagree, how can someone's belief be valid if it is based on a flawed premise or based on faulty information? How can someone's belief be valid if it's the result of insanity, or intentional manipulation?

I believe I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Do you believe it too? Why not, if all beliefs are equally valid?

Unless we're missing each other with respect to the definition of the word belief here.