What about the DNA evidence?

[Loudmouth]

My education was in Public schools.

Did a group of secular humanists block all of the entrances to the churches in your neighborhood?

Are you aware that people are free to attend church services and Sunday school where they can learn all about creationist beliefs without any interference from anybody? Are you aware that I, an atheist, celebrate your right to attend church and Sunday school? I would argue stridently that you should have every right to believe as you want and attend the religious services that you want.

Do we agree on that?

BTW, why are you here with your gloom of impending eternal death! Kind of a morbid guy, eh!

Huh?

 

[ArtB]

And sadly it was a bit lacking. Forget about evolution for now, a big part of your problem is that you were not educated in the scientific method or proper debating techniques.

I've earned 4 college degrees: Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've earned 4 college degrees: Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering.

If that is the case shame on you for quote mining. You should know better.

And second you should be able to pick up on the concept of scientific evidence fairly easily.

By the way. If you have a sphere of uniform density, with the exception of a non concentric spherical void within the sphere could you calculate the force of gravity within the void? A physicist should be able to answer this question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus I have severe doubts about the claims of a degree in mathematics and a degree in physics. Mathematicians would usually never bring up an "odds argument" against evolution. Those are too easily shown to be fatally flawed. No physicist would bring a "second law of thermodynamics" argument against evolution since those are all laughably flawed to anyone who understands thermodynamics.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If that is the case shame on you for quote mining. You should know better.

And second you should be able to pick up on the concept of scientific evidence fairly easily.

By the way. If you have a sphere of uniform density, with the exception of a non concentric spherical void within the sphere could you calculate the force of gravity within the void? A physicist should be able to answer this question.

At least he actually puts in a quote from scientific sources, unlike some on here that have nothing better to do than make claims with no backing at all.

And yet if one has a charges sphere relative to his surroundings, one can do just that. Someone with claimed knowledge of science should know that.

Example 4.1: Electric field of a uniformly charged sphere

[SIZE=+1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Clearly, the electric field-strength is proportional to

inside the sphere, but falls off like

outside the sphere."

Since the earth is not hollow, but solid, math for a hollow Gaussian surface is invalid.

Electric field due to charged solid sphere|Electric field due to an infinite plane sheet of charge

"[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Thus we see that magnitude of field outside the sphere is exactly the same as it would have been as if all the charge were concentrated at its center."

So for a solid, one can assume all the charge as concentrated in its center, just as gravity is an assumed point charge at the center of an object.

Now for a hollow object it is quite different, and indeed the charge at the exact point center would be zero.

Are you suggesting that the Earth is hollow at its center or solid?

Then you also have to remember the earth is in a circuit, there are 100,000 amperes every second flowing in and out of the poles, a well known scientific fact.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a fluctuating current, neither constant nor steady and has been measured to increase to more than 1 million amperes at times. So the current flows into the poles and out invalidating your idea of a constant charge sitting on the surface. For those that know no electrical theory, electricity must ALWAYS flow in a circuit. What flows "into" the earth, must also flow "out of the earth.

But people that do not understand electricity only like to think of Gaussian surfaces when the Earth is a solid sphere, with current flowing in and out of it every second. It is this current that heats the earth's core through induction heating. It has not remained hot for billions of years by magic, nor is there a perpetual motion machine spinning at its core, spinning for billions of years against friction. The earth and all bodies in space spin, because that is what things do in electric currents that twist around each other.

Induction heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least he actually puts in a quote from scientific sources, unlike some on here that have nothing better to do than make claims with no backing at all.

And yet if one has a charges sphere relative to his surroundings, one can do just that. Someone with claimed knowledge of science should know that.

Example 4.1: Electric field of a uniformly charged sphere

[SIZE=+1]"[/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Clearly, the electric field-strength is proportional to

inside the sphere, but falls off like

outside the sphere."

Since the earth is not hollow, but solid, math for a hollow Gaussian surface is invalid.

Electric field due to charged solid sphere|Electric field due to an infinite plane sheet of charge

"[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Thus we see that magnitude of field outside the sphere is exactly the same as it would have been as if all the charge were concentrated at its center."

So for a solid, one can assume all the charge as concentrated in its center, just as gravity is an assumed point charge at the center of an object.

Now for a hollow object it is quite different, and indeed the charge at the exact point center would be zero.

Are you suggesting that the Earth is hollow at its center or solid?

Then you also have to remember the earth is in a circuit, there are 100,000 amperes every second flowing in and out of the poles, a well known scientific fact.

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a fluctuating current, neither constant nor steady and has been measured to increase to more than 1 million amperes at times. So the current flows into the poles and out invalidating your idea of a constant charge sitting on the surface. For those that know no electrical theory, electricity must ALWAYS flow in a circuit. What flows "into" the earth, must also flow "out of the earth.

But people that do not understand electricity only like to think of Gaussian surfaces when the Earth is a solid sphere, with current flowing in and out of it every second. It is this current that heats the earth's core through induction heating. It has not remained hot for billions of years by magic, nor is there a perpetual motion machine spinning at its core, spinning for billions of years against friction. The earth and all bodies in space spin, because that is what things do in electric currents that twist around each other.

Induction heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/SIZE][/FONT]

LOL, the question was for ArtB and not for you, but thanks for showing that you have no clue. Nor do you have any clue about Gauss's Law. The fact that the Earth is solid does not make the math of Gauss's Law invalid. So I guess this is at least a minor bonus for me.

You can't do the math or physics that you pretend to be able to do which means that all of your rants and raves for an electric universe are only those of a totally ignorant clueless fan of Woo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will give Justa one more chance. He was close on what physical laws to use to answer my question.

Here is a clue that you seemed to have missed from my original question. Please note that the two spheres are not concentric.

Solving the problem for a concentric hollow is extremely easy. That is not the case here.

Here are some mathematical constraints that may even help you.

You have a sphere of radius R. There is a sphere of radius r within the sphere.

The hollow is at point a,b where the center of the sphere is at location 0,0.

R > r + ((a^2 + B^2)^1/2), if a = 0 then b=/= 0 (does not equal 0) if b = 0 then a=/=0 (does not equal 0).



There that last line sets it out mathematically.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've earned 4 college degrees: Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering.

Then you should be embarrassed by your comments on evolution as it relates to thermodynamics. You should alread know that if energy is added to a system that entropy can decrease. It is one of the simplest concepts they teach you with respect to the 2nd law. If it didn't occur this way, then refrigerators wouldn't work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you should be embarrassed by your comments on evolution as it relates to thermodynamics. You should alread know that if energy is added to a system that entropy can decrease. It is one of the simplest concepts they teach you with respect to the 2nd law. If it didn't occur this way, then refrigerators wouldn't work.

Of course some colleges have different sorts of "physics" degrees. I met a cook who was working his way through college. Nothing wrong with that. He was taking physics so that he could teach it at a high school level. The problem was that he was not being taught physics. His physics was being taught without calculus, and you cannot really do physics or even learn it without calculus. At the most you can remember formulas. And you have to remember far more formulas than someone who actually can do physics has to memorize. For example from the law F = ma you can derive various formulas such as d = a + vt (1/2)gt^2 or E = gh or several others depending upon need. If you don't have calculus you have to remember which formula to apply when. At any rate he could have graduated, I think he is still a chef, with a teaching degree in physics without the ability to do any real physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course some colleges have different sorts of "physics" degrees. I met a cook who was working his way through college. Nothing wrong with that. He was taking physics so that he could teach it at a high school level. The problem was that he was not being taught physics. His physics was being taught without calculus, and you cannot really do physics or even learn it without calculus. At the most you can remember formulas. And you have to remember far more formulas than someone who actually can do physics has to memorize. For example from the law F = ma you can derive various formulas such as d = a + vt (1/2)gt^2 or E = gh or several others depending upon need. If you don't have calculus you have to remember which formula to apply when. At any rate he could have graduated, I think he is still a chef, with a teaching degree in physics without the ability to do any real physics.

Even the simple concepts I was taught in high school is enough to debunk the creationist nonsense as it relates to evolution and entropy. The 2nd law states that if a hot object comes into contact with a cold object that the heat will move into the cold object until they reach equilibrium. Therefore, evolution can't occur? Huh? We were also taught in high school that a neat room is not more thermodynamically ordered than a messy room. Order and disorder have specific meanings with relation to entropy, and it isn't what the creationists say it is.

 

[Michael]

Plus I have severe doubts about the claims of a degree in mathematics and a degree in physics.

FYI, you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the individual rather that focusing on the evidence and data, even when there is a plethora of evidence on your side of the debate. That's a pity. FYI, lot's of folks with masters degrees in physics believe in things that don't show up in the lab, or that lack empirical support. Get over it.

I am personally still curious if ArtB is willing to differentiate and distinguish between the theory of abogenesis and evolutionary theory. IMO that would go a long to simplifying the conversation. While Art's criticisms as he has expressed them may have merit as it relate to abogenesis theory, they don't really have any bearing on evolutionary theory.

In my experience, it is all too common to confuse the two theories and lump them both together into the same argument. That's typically not helpful.

 

[bhsmte]

FYI, you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the individual rather that focusing on the evidence and data, even when there is a plethora of evidence on your side of the debate. That's a pity. FYI, lot's of folks with masters degrees in physics believe in things that don't show up in the lab, or that lack empirical support. Get over it.

I am personally still curious if ArtB is willing to differentiate and distinguish between the theory of abogenesis and evolutionary theory. IMO that would go a long to simplifying the conversation. While Art's criticisms as he has expressed them may have merit as it relate to abogenesis theory, they don't really have any bearing on the evolutionary theory.

In my experience, is common to confuse the two theories and lump them both together in the same argument. That's typically not helpful.

Would you agree, that when you see people are lumping abogenesis together with the theory of evolution, is a pretty good sign their knowledge of the subjects is lacking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

FYI, you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the individual rather that focusing on the evidence and data, even when there is a plethora of evidence on your side of the debate. That's a pity. FYI, lot's of folks with masters degrees in physics believe in things that don't show up in the lab, or that lack empirical support. Get over it.

I am personally still curious if ArtB is willing to differentiate and distinguish between the theory of abogenesis and evolutionary theory. IMO that would go a long to simplifying the conversation. While Art's criticisms as he has expressed them may have merit as it relate to abogenesis theory, they don't really have any bearing on the evolutionary theory.

In my experience, is common to confuse the two theories and lump them both together in the same argument. That's typically not helpful.

The individual has not posted any arguments. He has posted mostly quote mines. I ignore quote mines since they are a waste of my time. They prove nothing except for the lack of honesty of the poster.

And I gave him a simple test that any physicist would be able to answer. Heck, I am not a physicist and I can answer it. If someone makes false claims about their abilities then why should we listen to any of their other arguments. Take Kent Hovind for instance. He was one of the greatest of creationist hucksters and in a couple of years he will be again. He always opened up with a lie about his credentials. Then he wold lie for the rest of his videos. If someone lies at the start you cannot trust any of their following claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, you spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the individual rather that focusing on the evidence and data, even when there is a plethora of evidence on your side of the debate. That's a pity. FYI, lot's of folks with masters degrees in physics believe in things that don't show up in the lab, or that lack empirical support. Get over it.

I am personally still curious if ArtB is willing to differentiate and distinguish between the theory of abogenesis and evolutionary theory. IMO that would go a long to simplifying the conversation. While Art's criticisms as he has expressed them may have merit as it relate to abogenesis theory, they don't really have any bearing on evolutionary theory.

In my experience, it is all too common to confuse the two theories and lump them both together into the same argument. That's typically not helpful.

It is certainly interesting how someone can have 4 college degrees in Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering and get something as simple as the 2nd law of entropy wrong.

 

[Michael]

Would you agree, that when you see people are lumping abogenesis together with the theory of evolution, is a pretty good sign their knowledge of the subjects is lacking?

There's plenty of finger pointing to go around on that score I'm afraid, but yes, probably so. It's highly common however in debate that atheists and theists tend to "assume" that abiogenesis and EV theory go hand in hand. It's obviously not that simple, but both sides seem to 'assume' during the conversation that both theories are necessarily either true or false as a pair. It's rare to see them clearly distinguished on both sides, and more common that the arguments get lumped together. I think that's one of the primary 'fears' of most theists that I've debated on this topic, as well as the primary assumption of most atheists I've met.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is certainly interesting how someone can have 4 college degrees in Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering and get something as simple as the 2nd law of entropy wrong.

An please notice how quickly he disappeared after making that claim.

My question was difficult for most but not hard at all. When I asked it to my brother, who is a genuine physicist, only a four year degree yet he has been working steadily in the field, he solved it immediately. Plus that is a bit of a strange mix. Now math and physics are very often taken together since you need some very strong math skills to do upper level physics. And and EE degree is not too much out in left field either. But a history degree? This sounds like someone who got a teaching degree and is over valuing his education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's plenty of finger pointing to go around on that score I'm afraid, but yes, probably so. It's highly common however in debate that atheists and theists tend to "assume" that abiogenesis and EV theory go hand in hand. It's obviously not that simple, but both sides seem to 'assume' during the conversation that both theories are necessarily either true or false as a pair. It's rare to see them clearly distinguished on both sides, and more common that the arguments get lumped together. I think that's one of the primary 'fears' of most theists that I've debated on this topic, as well as the primary assumption of most atheists I've met.

Yes, evolution and abiogenesis probably do go hand in hand. The important fact is that it does not matter. Once life got here we know that it evolved. There is no question about that. Evolutionists never claim that abiogenesis has to be true. The odds are well over 99% that it is true, but it has not be demonstrated yet.

There is no need to separate the two because we know that evolution happened. Nor does the fact of evolution debunk all of Christianity.

 

[Michael]

It is certainly interesting how someone can have 4 college degrees in Physics, Math, History, and Electrical Engineering and get something as simple as the 2nd law of entropy wrong.

I've seen plenty of very intelligent, educated folks, some even with degrees, say some pretty bone headed things during debate, including folks that deny the existence of electrical discharges in plasma, and that run around claiming that "magnetic reconnection" is a plasma optional process that can occur in a complete vacuum. Sometimes they even stick to their guns when every single published paper and textbook is against them too.

I've also been known to kludge more than a few sentences by leaving out a key word (like the word "not") which completely changes the entire meaning of a single sentence. I don't get too worked up about it, and it's not particularly surprising anymore.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've seen plenty of very intelligent, educated folks, some even with degrees, say some pretty bone headed things during debate, including folks that deny the existence of electrical discharges in plasma, and that run around claiming that "magnetic reconnection" is a plasma optional process that can occur in a complete vacuum. Sometimes they even stick to their guns when every single published paper and textbook is against them too.

I've also been known to kludge more than a few sentences by leaving out a key word (like the word "not") which completely changes the entire meaning of a single sentence. I don't get too worked up about it, and it's not particularly surprising anymore.

Don Quixote is back.

 

[Michael]

Yes, evolution and abiogenesis probably do go hand in hand. The important fact is that it does not matter.

It does matter to Art's argument. His criticisms are directed at abiogenesis theory, not evolutionary theory. For purposes of debate it's a *critically important* distinction.

Once life got here we know that it evolved. There is no question about that.

I would grant you that the evidence strongly supports your conclusion as it relates to evolutionary theory, but your use of terms like 'know' and 'no question' aren't actually congruent with "science". Science leaves room for doubt and debate, even if you don't. That's one of those emotional trigger points that tends to skew the conversation.

Even if that's true, it has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of abiogenesis theory, so the smugness is useless in terms of trying to make your point. In fact I would argue that it's counter productive, particularly until you both agree that one theory doesn't support the other.

Evolutionists never claim that abiogenesis has to be true. The odds are well over 99% that it is true, but it has not be demonstrated yet.

Pfffft! You have no idea what the 'odds' really are of abiogenesis, you literally pulled that number out of your back pocket. You went from *absolute certainty* with EV theory (a no-no in science) to a figure for abiogenesis theory that skews the argument entirely, and that enjoys no mathematical support whatseover! Like I said, your *assumption* they must both be true or both be false is a highly biased *assumption* on your part. DNA might very well have been 'intelligently designed' with the ability to adapt to a wide variety of environments, trillions upon trillions of years ago. Your 'assumption' of 99 percent "it all started by random chance" is without any merit whatsoever. It's a great example of how both sides *assume* stuff that isn't true.

There is no need to separate the two because we know that evolution happened. Nor does the fact of evolution debunk all of Christianity.

I'm glad you recognize that all Catholics and many other individual "Christians" embrace evolutionary theory. None of us put much faith in abiogenesis theory like you do however.