Discontinued debunked and dismissed creationist arguments

[Sinai]

Originally posted by elephanticity
"Time is the magic wand of evolutionists..." That's been bothering me for a while. Is that a Kent Hovind quote? It sounds like his kind of science...

Sorry. Can't answer where that quotation came from, but it sounds vaguely reminiscent of the well known quotation from Nobel laureate George Wald, who stated in a Scientific American article that "Time itself performs the miracles. Time is in fact the hero of the plot." It might be noted that Scientific American later acknowledged that Wald had erred.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

quote: "the entropy of the Universe increases, causing things to mutate into other forms"

That satement is so insanely false it leads me to wonder if: (a) you are a troll, (b) you have next to nil understanding of basic science, or (c) what you have been smoking

 

[Martin Luther]

LC,

Running several searches on Yahoo under 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, addressed the issue of entropy as random disorder, and its increase in the universe.

www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/secondlaw.
html.

might help you understand the 2nd law in a more clearer light.

What science book are you reading?

 

[Martin Luther]

LC, LC..sigh...


your not looking at the implication of 1st/2nd law...

if energy is not created or can be destroyed, than by implication all that is has been in existence for an eternity...

by paradox....the 2nd law of entropy points to decay and disorder....

now..since energy cannot be destroyed, and entropy decays it or transform its nature, it must then mutate constantly to new forms......thus re-inventing itself..or beginning again. You will find several web pages which deal with the increase of entropy.


are you following any of this?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Holy cow Martin, you really crack me up. Seriously, I had a good laugh at that one.

you said "if energy is not created or can be destroyed, than by implication all that is has been in existence for an eternity... "
Have you ever heard of virtual particles? The beginings of the universe, although mysterious, are believed to have occured in a similar fasion as with virtual partcles. There are several current theories on the beginings of the universe, I suggest you look into them. Now, lets get something straight. All physicists recognize that the laws of thermodynamics are fundamental to the reality of the universe. Don't ya think some of them would have noticed if the Big Bang Theory (or the theory of evolution) contradicted them? Don't ya think someone would have pointed out that glaring error in logic yet. Oh, and BTW, even IF the universe has been in existance for eternity (and nobody exept you claims it does) it has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. Now, perhaps you read a headline about the recent "bouncing" or "cyclic" universe hypothesis. It is a refinement of the Big Bang theory, and if it becomes widely accepted, it still has no implications on evolution. I suggest you actually read the whole article instead of just the headline.
you said "by paradox....the 2nd law of entropy points to decay and disorder.... "
Are you actually trying to suggest that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are in contradiciton to one another? Again, don't ya suppose that someone would have picked up on that by now.
you said "now..since energy cannot be destroyed, and entropy decays it or transform its nature, it must then mutate constantly to new forms......thus re-inventing itself..or beginning again. "

Now that's funny. You are joking right. Energy mutating, begining agian and re-inventing itself? Oh, ok buddy. Entropy means that all energy is lost as heat, thats it dude. Show me where in any textbook where it says anything about mutating or re-inventing itself.
you said "are you following any of this?"

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

you said "are you following any of this?"
You mean that any of that was supposed to make sense?

I read over the link you gave me to Berkeley's 2nd law page, and it says nothing like what you are trying to pass off here dude. In that case, it said nothing to contradict what I had said earlier about the laws of thermodynamics.

Are the laws of physics just THAT different in the reality from where you come, or maybe you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[dkewatson]

Just for a clarification on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics since many if not most of you seem to not really understand what is implied by it... It states entropy increases in a CLOSED system. Thus your trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics is unwarranted. The earth is NOT a closed system, we are an open system getting energy from the sun daily. But the universe as a whole is a closed system (or at least is agreed to be).

Furthermore, I find your attempts at using science to disprove science idiotic. It is impossible. That is like using logic to defeat logic it cannot happen. In order for your claim to debunk what it is trying to you must first admit the validity of it. Thus your whole point destroys itself.

In conclusion, I urge you all to actually read the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and figure out what it really says. Not what some pastor told you about how it debunks the whole notion of evolution and Big Bang.

--Dan

 

[Martin Luther]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
, Now that's funny. You are joking right. Energy mutating, begining agian and re-inventing itself? Oh, ok buddy. Entropy means that all energy is lost as heat, thats it dude. Show me where in any textbook where it says anything about mutating or re-inventing itself.
you said "are you following any of this?"

Then by your defination the universe should be heat...nothing but heat.

And it bothers me that you side step the issue of entropy as random, decaying disorder. But it becomes.."heat, that its dude."

Because to do so would be to admit that Law 1/2 do contradict each other.

Block of ice...melted to water. Do I call the water ice, no. I heat the water to steam. Do I call the steam water. No.

For you see the ice has decayed and become new form, water, and heating that it becomes steam.

No energy has been created or destroyed...Law 1.
Existing energy has decayed and become a new form of energy. Re inventing itself under the said laws to become something new...Law 2.

In this case ice to water to steam.

As for the big band or subatomic particles, I have no argument with any of that.

I am aware that the Earth is not a closed system, but is dependent on the sun, which moves under even greater forces.

Finally, the word paradox is not unknown in science, mathematics, philsophy or..theology. A ray of light is both a beam and particles.

Well, LC, its been a good hour, and I think we have made some real progress today...remember to keep those letters and cards coming in...

Off to listen to some Beatles...

 

[elephanticity]

Finally, the word paradox is not unknown in science, mathematics, philsophy or..theology. A ray of light is both a beam and particles.

it appears to have the properties of both wave and particle, until it is forced to choose. If light passes thru a filter that allows only particles, it becomes a particle and passes thru. If the filter allows only waves, then light becomes a wave and passes thru.

The interesting thing is when you test for wave or particle BEFORE the light passes thru the filter....

it isn't a paradox. It's just weird.

A paradox in science means we don't have enough information to really understand something. I'm not sure what you would mean by a mathematical paradox. And a theological paradox usually is answered by:

"Oh, that part's not meant to be taken literally."

or
"Well, God works in mysterious ways."

or
"If you had the Spirit working within you, you'd understand."

or other such cop outs.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Originally posted by Martin Luther

Existing energy has decayed and become a new form of energy. Re inventing itself under the said laws to become something new...Law 2.

In this case ice to water to steam.

The second law of thermodynamics always seems to be a point of contention.

Personally, I believe the "Re inventing itself" is incorrect. Most matter/energy has at least three phases: solid, liquid and gaseous. There's some bizarre "in between" states that exist that we can ignore for the moment.

Water, whether frozen (solid), wet (liquid) or gaseous (steam) is still composed of a single oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms.

The second law of thermodynamics simply states that the water will move from a highly ordered state (ice) to a less ordered state (water) without outside influence.

Chaos in a mathematical sense -- the definition that's being debated in this discussion -- is this: highly ordered (less chaotic) states take less room. As chaos, or entropy, increases, the matter moves to take up more space.

This can be easily illustrated with the water/ice example. Place an ice cube in a glass and let it melt. The ice cube is compact when frozen; it holds the shape it had when solid and air is visible around the edges. As the ice heats, the molecules move faster and spread out along the bottom of the glass. This movement and expansion -- Chaos -- continues until the ice becomes entirely liquid and reaches an equilibrium with the environment.

It takes more energy to freeze the water than it does to thaw it. This can be proven by unplugging your fridge.

Energy (and matter; they're the same thing) cannot reinvent itself. States can be changed, but matter does not spontaneously reinvent itself as something else. Lead does not (and cannot, as far as I've been able to find) transmute into gold; Stable substances do not become more stable substances. Hydrogen can be fused into heilum in part because of the instability in hydrogen and the stability of helium.

I think you meant to stay that existing matter has changed states from a solid to a liquid to a gas.

For some stunningly easy to understand explanations of the thermodynamic and quantum mechanic principles, I'd suggest picking up Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" or "Six Easy Pieces and Six Not So Easy Pieces".

 

[chickenman]

the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument is ridiculous, the misapplication that creation scientists use would make cellular processes and the formation of macromolecules impossible, they clearly are not

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin recanting on deathbed

From the site:

It has been widely held among many sincere and well-meaning Christians that Charles Darwin on his deathbed not only renounced evolution, but also accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.

I don't know if Darwin accepted Jesus Christ or not on his deathbed.

But if he didn't -- will you be willing to understand where we're coming from if we say that Darwin is in Hell right now?

We Christians would like to think Darwin is in Heaven; but you guys, it seems, want us to think differently?

 

[rockaction]

Stop bumping dead threads.

 

[Cabal]

From the site:
I don't know if Darwin accepted Jesus Christ or not on his deathbed.

But if he didn't -- will you be willing to understand where we're coming from if we say that Darwin is in Hell right now?

We Christians would like to think Darwin is in Heaven; but you guys, it seems, want us to think differently?

The issue is not about where Darwin ended up - it is about the mistaken notion that because Darwin had a deathbed (re)conversion, it implies that he knew something was wrong with the ToE. However, his state of faith is irrelevant to the matter, because as we all know, accepting evolution and being a Christian are not mutually exclusive.

 

[AV1611VET]

The issue is not about where Darwin ended up - it is about the mistaken notion that because Darwin had a deathbed (re)conversion, it implies that he knew something was wrong with the ToE. However, his state of faith is irrelevant to the matter, because as we all know, accepting evolution and being a Christian are not mutually exclusive.

Did you read the quote from the site?

Here it is again:

It has been widely held among many sincere and well-meaning Christians that Charles Darwin on his deathbed not only renounced evolution, but also accepted Jesus Christ as his savior.

That's the part I'm addressing.

 

[Cabal]

Did you read the quote from the site?

Here it is again:

That's the part I'm addressing.

Yup, and noone here has said that countering the argument requires Darwin to be in hell.

Also, you might want to consider the entire paragraph (emphasis mine):

It has been widely held among many sincere and well-meaning Christians that Charles Darwin on his deathbed not only renounced evolution, but also accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. The tale of this deathbed conversion has been passed down over the years as fact. This “event” has even been used as “evidence” that evolution is false. The overzealous have, at times, boldly proclaimed, “See—even Darwin knew that this theory was not true!”

None of this requires Darwin to be in hell because his eventual destination is irrelevant to the question of the validity of ToE.

But go ahead, keep convincing yourself that we want to see him in Hell.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, you might want to consider the entire paragraph (emphasis mine):

I'm familiar with the entire paragraph (emphasis mine) -- that's why I went out of my way to just quote the part I wished to address.

 

[Cabal]

I'm familiar with the entire paragraph (emphasis mine) -- that's why I went out of my way to just quote the part I wished to address.

And if you look at the ENTIRE paragraph it shows why it doesn't require that we wish Darwin end up in hell. Stop oversimplifying.

If you're going to necro a thread at least try and make a good point.