Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
then this is a philosophical debate, not a scientific debate.
oh it is a scientific debate.... well nto a debate as such, since the people who say that the 2LOD forbids evolution are wrong. they have never pointed out an actual step of the evolutionary process which is forbidden.
one who tried to create amino acids yet ended up doing it in a vacuum because the oxygen was destroying the process. From what I have heard. See that’s the problem, we create things in test tubes and call it proof. You can never mimic the true atmosphere nor can you state if the atmospheric conditions of the past were identical to the atmospheric conditions at present. You can try to say you can, but the truth is, you simply do not know that for sure.
well that's ok, because there are numerous experiments that actually simulate the conditions of the early earth, and those do produce amino acids and hypercycles and so on.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
one who tried to create amino acids yet ended up doing it in a vacuum because the oxygen was destroying the process. From what I have heard. See that’s the problem, we create things in test tubes and call it proof. You can never mimic the true atmosphere nor can you state if the atmospheric conditions of the past were identical to the atmospheric conditions at present. You can try to say you can, but the truth is, you simply do not know that for sure.
We can say with 99.99% certainty that the atmosphere was very different when life first came into being. For instance the atmosphere was highly reducing, and the irony is that the oxidising atmosphere we have today was caused by the life that emerged, releasing oxygen as part of their metabolism.
The proof of this different atmosphere is shown by geology, which is very good at showing the composition of the atmosphere throughout the history of earth.
__________________ Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity"
oh it is a scientific debate.... well nto a debate as such, since the people who say that the 2LOD forbids evolution are wrong. they have never pointed out an actual step of the evolutionary process which is forbidden.
*
well side ‘A’ says: order => disorder and Side ‘B’ says: disorder => order. Sounds a bit philosophical to me. Forbidden? Well if 2 species share a common genetic trait, and look practically identical to one another, thus I’d imagine we state that they shared a common ancestor way back when in 10^n years ago, I’d assume since their genetic makeup is so similar, they would be able to reproduce. Yet a Horse + Donkey = sterile. I guess even if 2 species genetic material look so very similar, they are still so very much far apart.
*
well that's ok, because there are numerous experiments that actually simulate the conditions of the early earth, and those do produce amino acids and hypercycles and so on.
*
and how did we find the atmosphere of the early earth? Remember, that was 10 zillion years ago
One thing I always find amusing about geology, is how geologist give the timeframe of how such things as canyons were formed, it always ends in 10^n N|N>100000…. And then theyturn around and watch a volcano carve an entire canyon in days
well side ‘A’ says: order => disorder and Side ‘B’ says: disorder => order. Sounds a bit philosophical to me.
the issue is, that those attempting to use the 2lod are flat out wrong.
Forbidden? Well if 2 species share a common genetic trait, and look practically identical to one another, thus I’d imagine we state that they shared a common ancestor way back when in 10^n years ago.
you would be right so far.
I’d assume since their genetic makeup is so similar, they would be able to reproduce.
just because they look alike, no, not nescessarily, one cannot determine the genotype so easily from the phenotype. For example marsupial moles look rather similar to placental moles, however their common ancestor is further back than our common ancestor with moles.
Yet a Horse + Donkey = sterile. I guess even if 2 species genetic material look so very similar, they are still so very much far apart.
well the genetic similarities between donkeys and horses are not all that close. donkeys have more chromosomes that horses (if I recall correctly, it could be the other way round though). However there are such things as fertile mules and hinnies, though they are not very common.
and how did we find the atmosphere of the early earth? Remember, that was 10 zillion years ago
ask a geologist.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
oh it is a scientific debate.... well nto a debate as such, since the people who say that the 2LOD forbids evolution are wrong. they have never pointed out an actual step of the evolutionary process which is forbidden.
*
well side ‘A’ says: order => disorder and Side ‘B’ says: disorder => order. Sounds a bit philosophical to me. Forbidden?
Nothing philosophical about "forbidden by the SLoT. We're still waiting for information on the impossible process. We're also intrigued as to why it prevents evolution in the natural world but allows the selective breeding of show guppies, other than that even creationists aren't daft enough to deny that cobra-skin delta tails exist.
Well if 2 species share a common genetic trait, and look practically identical to one another, thus I’d imagine we state that they shared a common ancestor way back when in 10^n years ago, I’d assume since their genetic makeup is so similar, they would be able to reproduce. Yet a Horse + Donkey = sterile. I guess even if 2 species genetic material look so very similar, they are still so very much far apart.
Very selective choice of example. I have in my aquaria some very fertile hybrids of Xiphophorus helleri and Xiphophorus maculatus. Horses and donkeys find it difficult to generate fertile offspring because they have different chromosome numbers, which can make meiosis very difficult. Many closely related species do not have this problem and interbreed freely producing fertile offspring. Many Felis sylvestris in Scotland have interbred with Felis domesticus and are perfectly fertile; indeed conservationists are concerned about the amount of domestic moggie getting into the wildcat population.
well that's ok, because there are numerous experiments that actually simulate the conditions of the early earth, and those do produce amino acids and hypercycles and so on.
*
and how did we find the atmosphere of the early earth? Remember, that was 10 zillion years ago
We just guessed. No rigour in science.
Alternative answer - I suggest you go to http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and do a search for "early earth atmosphere". You'll find lots of hits there that will explain current thinking on this topic and the evidence from which it is derived.
One thing I always find amusing about geology, is how geologist give the timeframe of how such things as canyons were formed, it always ends in 10^n N|N>100000…. And then theyturn around and watch a volcano carve an entire canyon in days
What I find amusing is that creationists think that geologists are so stupid that they don't know the difference between a canyon created by a volcanic eruption and one created by other means. These things leave evidence, you know....
__________________ I take a stand on justice, I take a stand on race Gonna take me a TV evangelist and punch him in the face I sing about the hope that’s in me and ask why the poor aren’t fed But if I don’t tow the party line, it’s be better if I were dead
I’m a liberal backslider I’ve been sliding ‘bout ten years
People ask me how I’m doin’ and I confirm all their fears I’m swearing like a trooper, and I’m drinking like a bum
I'm a liberal backslider, and it sure is a lot of fun
well side ‘A’ says: order => disorder and Side ‘B’ says: disorder => order. Sounds a bit philosophical to me.
The second law of thermodynamics states that
1. In reversible transitions between equilbrium states, the quantity dU + PdV, Where U is energy, P is pressure and V is volume is an exact differential with an integrating factor dependant only on temperature which can be used intigrate over transition from one state to the other. The resulting integral is the entropy change.
2. The overall entropy change during a transition is always equal to or greater than zero.
Statement 2 is known as the Clausius inequality.
dU + PdV is almost alway heat or Q since PdV is the work, W, and U = Q-W, but the above statement is a bit more general. This means that no process can exist whose sole consquence is to transfer heat from a hotter body to a cooler body.
All real process have some irreversibility so another consequence of the second law is that no real process can work in a complete cycle and absord all of the heat it receives from a reservior to work.
However, as has been pointed out the entropy change is only greater than zero for the overall process and locally entropy can decrease. It is only the entropy of the entire universe which must increase in any real process. Typically one defines a system and its surroundings. If a system is closed to heat and matter flow it is said to be isolated or adiabatically closed and then the entropy of the system must increase. In practice such systems don't exist in nature.
Evolution requires a series of steps. To prove that evolution violates the second law one or more of those steps must proven to violate the second as defined above. No creationist has ever been able to this.
One thing I always find amusing about geology, is how geologist give the timeframe of how such things as canyons were formed, it always ends in 10^n N|N>100000…. And then theyturn around and watch a volcano carve an entire canyon in days
This is very off topic here but I assume you are refering to the so-called "little grand canyon" that temporarily formed on the Toutle River, at least some of which was cut by the Army Corp of Engineers trying drain Spirit Lake before it overflowed.
What is really amusing is that creationists seem to think that cutting a "canyon" 100 feet deep through unconsolidated sediments that had just flowed down the mountain in a lahar is anything at all like carving a mile deep canyon in very solid rock. The last time I visted St. Helens you could still dig in this material with your bare hands. I don't think you'd get very far into the Vishnu Granites, Redwall Limestones or Coconino Sandstones with your bare hands. Further unconsolidated materials simply won't support walls above a certain height.
just because they look alike, no, not nescessarily, one cannot determine the genotype so easily from the phenotype. For example marsupial moles look rather similar to placental moles, however their common ancestor is further back than our common ancestor with moles.
*
yaaa, okie dokie
*
ask a geologist.
*
I’m asking a physicist. Is C constant? [sunlight and other radiation effects many organic materials]
yaaa, okie dokie 
Linear Mode
