What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Al Touthentop]

It doesn't make sense because their are physical consequences that make it untenable with in the context of what they are trying to describe.

Or do you think it's reasonable that Noah floated around on clouds of super-heated steam?

No, and they don't assert that he did and their claim is that the super heated steam is what allowed for the rain afterward.

Sure you did. You just claimed that complexity requires an outside energy source, then immediately tried to argue that the energy from the Sun increases entropy.

You don't seem to know what you're trying to argue.

You clearly don't understand entropy. Were the sun to produce enough energy to decrease entropy, then it would be doing that. Instead, we know it increases entropy. The reason that physical law is assumed to be a law is that there has never been an experiment that has contradicted it and all experiments have confirmed it. All of these experiments have been conducted while the sun was up in the "sky." There's no contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In point of fact, flat earth wasn't a wide spread belief at any time among scholars. The idea that people believe the earth was flat is itself a myth. Cut it out already.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[8]

And the bible says the earth was round before those scholars posited it.



I couldn't find a complete text online. But I did find an article that does support the genuineness of the quote yet points out that Augustine himself supported a literal reading of Genesis. So the quote does not argue against creationism as is implied.

Lessons from Augustine - creation.com

Your source does not support you. Yes, among scholars. The writers of the early books of the Old Testament almost certainly were not scholars. You tried to use that article to refute that belief among the writers of the Bible and you failed at that. No one has stated that they were Flat Earth believers, though it does seem likely, but you did not prove by any means that they were not.

And why did you use a poisoned site at the end of your post? There is nothing wrong with getting your ideas from creationist sources, but since they have been repeatedly shown to be dishonest and since one cannot follow the scientific method, as I showed to you by quoting and linking a statement of faith they are of no use in a scientific debate. Do you think that that source does not have one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All science comes from the Greeks. They produced the first philosophers though one could argue that Solomon was the first true philosopher.

Flat earth was never a thing among scholars at any time.

No, that is incorrect. That the idea may have had its birth there does not mean that "all science comes from the Greeks". They did not even invent the scientific method. That came much later. And today to do science one needs to follow the scientific method. Something that no creationist site does.

 

[pitabread]

No, and they don't assert that he did and their claim is that the super heated steam is what allowed for the rain afterward.

You do understand what super-heating the Earth's oceans would do to living things don't you?

I feel like you're not quite grasping the broader implications here (hint: everything on the planet dies).

The only way to avoid a global extinction event proposed by Baumgardner is magic.

You clearly don't understand entropy. Were the sun to produce enough energy to decrease entropy, then it would be doing that. Instead, we know it increases entropy.

What effect does sunlight have on plants?

Think about it for a bit.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Your source does not support you.

Augustine was a literalist. You haven't read the article anyway, you never do.

Yes, among scholars. The writers of the early books of the Old Testament almost certainly were not scholars.

And since they didn't believe in a flat earth, that belief does not originate from the bible either.

And why did you use a poisoned site at the end of your post? There is nothing wrong with getting your ideas from creationist sources, but since they have been repeatedly shown to be dishonest and since one cannot follow the scientific method, as I showed to you by quoting and linking a statement of faith they are of no use in a scientific debate. Do you think that that source does not have one?

The only one who has been demonstrated to be dishonest is you. Even after you've been shown that your source was intentionally omitting data, you continued to make the claim that it was authoritative.

You can't even provide any quote from the IRC article that is "dishonest." I also noted the caveat when I posted the article that it was from the IRC. But here you are pretending that you discovered its "poison" when you were already forewarned of the source.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You do understand what super-heating the Earth's oceans would do to living things don't you?

I feel like you're not quite grasping the broader implications here (hint: everything on the planet dies).

The only way to avoid a global extinction event proposed by Baumgardner is magic.



What effect does sunlight have on plants?

Think about it for a bit.

It seems that you are the one who needs to think. Photosynthesis does not disprove entropy. That you would assert that it does is proof that you are either a science denier, or just simply don't understand entropy. If photosynthesis disproved entropy, you would be the first to ever suggest it and you ought to get a Nobel prize for recognizing what scientists have failed to do for centuries.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, and they don't assert that he did and their claim is that the super heated steam is what allowed for the rain afterward.

What you do not understand that that theory predicts that Noah would be cooked. Please note you used the word yourself "super heated steam". But that was only part of it. People have done the math one the motions of the continents. That would have created friction which would have created heat. Not only would the hot water from the Earth have cooked Noah, so would the motion of the plates in the falsely named "Hyroplate theory".

You clearly don't understand entropy. Were the sun to produce enough energy to decrease entropy, then it would be doing that. Instead, we know it increases entropy. The reason that physical law is assumed to be a law is that there has never been an experiment that has contradicted it and all experiments have confirmed it. All of these experiments have been conducted while the sun was up in the "sky." There's no contradiction.

Actually on a quantum level the law can be broken. But not on anything much beyond that. Your claim about complexity on the other hand demonstrates that you do not understand the Second Law of Entropy. It does not ban an increase in complexity, and you need to be thankful for that. You are far more complex now than you were as a zygote. You are relying on a simplified version of the law that is incorrect when applied inexactly. The Second Law of Thermodynamics merely states that reactions will lead to a decrease availability of energy for work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems that you are the one who needs to think. Photosynthesis does not disprove entropy. That you would assert that it does is proof that you are either a science denier, or just simply don't understand entropy. If photosynthesis disproved entropy, you would be the first to ever suggest it and you ought to get a Nobel prize for recognizing what scientists have failed to do for centuries.

Once again, it disproves the creationist strawman version of entropy. Like most science they get it wrong.

 

[Al Touthentop]

What you do not understand that that theory predicts that Noah would be cooked.

Nonsense. What theory? If that even is a theory, then you claim that all life on the planet would be cooked. But the phenomenon is regional and is said to have happened in the Pacific, not world wide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think this proves?

It appears to show that you do not understand your own sources.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Once again, it disproves the creationist strawman version of entropy. Like most science they get it wrong.

There is no such "creationist strawman" of entropy. Not one credible scientist suggests that photosynthesis disproves entropy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. What theory? If that even is a theory, then you claim that all life on the planet would be cooked. But the phenomenon is regional and is said to have happened in the Pacific, not world wide.

I agree, the hydroplate theory is nonsense.

 

[pitabread]

It seems that you are the one who needs to think. Photosynthesis does not disprove entropy. That you would assert that it does is proof that you are either a science denier, or just simply don't understand entropy. If photosynthesis disproved entropy, you would be the first to ever suggest it and you ought to get a Nobel prize for recognizing what scientists have failed to do for centuries.

The fact that plants photosynthesize is a contradiction of your claim that sunlight does nothing but increase entropy.

If you claim about sunlight were true, photosynthesis wouldn't exist.

But given your claim about sunlight is not true, plants are able to continue to photosynthesize and grow.

 

[Al Touthentop]

It does not ban an increase in complexity
.

So, you're a science denier. Isn't it crazy that the people who accuse others of being deniers are the biggest deniers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no such "creationist strawman" of entropy. Not one credible scientist suggests that photosynthesis disproves entropy.

Of course there is. Creationists are always making the false claim that complexity cannot arise naturally. A snowflake refutes that claim. They misstate the Second Law all of the time.

And entropy disproves the creationist version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It does not disprove the real one.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The fact that plants photosynthesize is a contradiction of your claim that sunlight does nothing but increase entropy.

No it isn't. Were it a contradiction, then there would be scientists who pose that claim. None do.

 

[pitabread]

No it isn't. Were it a contradiction, then there would be scientists who pose that claim. None do.

Yes, it really is. You've contradicted yourself about three times in your past few posts on this.

If you want to keeping digging by all means. I'll gladly hand you the shovel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you're a science denier. Isn't it crazy that the people who accuse others of being deniers are the biggest deniers.

No, you are projecting again. Pointing out how you do not understand science does not make me a science denier. You have been contradicting yourself quite a bit lately.

In fact if I was a science denier I would not be constantly offering to discuss the scientific method to you. I would say that the science denier is the one that runs away from that offer.

And if you like we can discuss the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it isn't. Were it a contradiction, then there would be scientists who pose that claim. None do.

What are you talking about? You still seem to be operating on a strawman.

 

[Jimmy D]

“The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable”

How We Do Research

Doesn’t sound like they follow the scientific method.

What does “real facts” mean? It suggests to me that any scientific knowledge that doesn’t square with YEC beliefs must be rejected, the arrogance of it beggars belief! A few mediocre scholars, writing articles about things that are outside their fields of expertise, dismiss the accumulated knowledge of the last couple of hundred years. Priceless.