Why Marine fossils are found on Mount Everest

I'ddie4him · Dec 18, 2006

Went quicker than anticipated.
Thread is now reopened.

We had to remove several posts.
We hope everyone understands that this happens from time to time.

Please keep the rules in mind when posting and report anything that goes against the rules instead of responding.

Thank you for your patience during this process.

flatworm · Dec 18, 2006

I took the liberty of looking up Ker C. Thompson's "Personal Testimony" at AIG.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/thomson.asp

Another quibble about application of the second law is contained in the claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only in closed systems. This is nonsense of a high order.

So far so good. The second law does apply to open systems, but it doesn't state that entropy can never decrease in them. One way to state the second law for open systems is (by Lord Kelvin)

A transformation whose only final result is to convert heat, extracted from a source at constant temperature, into work, is impossible

Now, let's get back to Dr. Thompson and watch him go off the deep end.

Surely all of us are familiar with the everyday expression of this law in open systems. (The humorous popular version of the second law is Murphys Law: Whatever can go wrong will go wrong.) Metals corrode, machines break down, our bodies deteriorate, and we die. Constant maintenance and planning against contingencies are required if life is to be sustained for even a transitory period, such as the lifetime of the individual. Ultimately, the second law takes over, and our bodies return to dust and our automobiles to the junkyard. By the application of our minds, we can resist the demands of the second law temporarily. General evolution collapses around this concept, however, because at the initiation of the evolutionary process in antiquity, there was no mind available to construct purposive machines to temporarily obviate the second laws demands. The idea that the second law can be confined to closed systems is a piece of confusion on the part of the proponent of such a concept.

From this it quickly becomes clear that, D.Sc. or not, this man is a moron. If it were impossible for entropy to decrease in an open system, your coffee would never cool off and the making of ice cubes would be impossible. That's right- any object just sitting there losing heat to its surroundings is decreasing its entropy.

Notice that no coherent statement of the second law involves things like minds or intelligence. Intelligence doesn't enter into it- if it did, we would call it the Second Engineering Concern of Thermodynamics. You can't violate the second law, be you ever so smart.

Under "Doctor" Thompson's wholly imaginary formulation of the second law, snowflakes are impossible but perpetual motion machines are not.

It's funny, I would have expected a "Top Scientist" to grasp the basics of thermodynamics.

Contracelsus · Dec 18, 2006

flatworm said:
I took the liberty of looking up Ker C. Thompson's "Personal Testimony" at AIG.
Under "Doctor" Thompson's wholly imaginary formulation of the second law, snowflakes are impossible but perpetual motion machines are not.

It's funny, I would have expected a "Top Scientist" to grasp the basics of thermodynamics.

Thank you for finding that.

Very revealing about Dr. Thompson's scientific bona fides. The sad thing is that he is ostensibly a geophysicist and should have a better grasp of thermodynamics.

AV1611VET · Oct 26, 2010

Baggins said:
That is why there are marine fossils ontop of mount Everest.

Either that, or they were deposited there by a global flood.

Just because science can espouse an alternate explanation, doesn't mean we have to accept it.

Especially when alternate explanation is a theory -- (which means it is pending obsoletism).

ExistenceUnknown · Oct 26, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Either that, or they were deposited there by a global flood.

Just because science can espouse an alternate explanation, doesn't mean we have to accept it.

Especially when alternate explanation is a theory -- (which means it is pending obsoletism).

Scientific Theory ≠ Pending Obsoletism

AV1611VET · Oct 26, 2010

ExistenceUnknown said:
Scientific Theory ≠ Pending Obsoletism

That's news to me.

ExistenceUnknown · Oct 26, 2010

AV1611VET said:
That's news to me.

What does Scientific Theory mean to you? Just define it using your own words so I can have a better understanding of how to word my response.

AV1611VET · Oct 26, 2010

ExistenceUnknown said:
What does Scientific Theory mean to you? Just define it using your own words so I can have a better understanding of how to word my response.

Let's skip it, EU -- that's just a side-issue to my point, anyway.

Just because there's another explanation, doesn't mean I have to buy into it, especially if that explanation is just a theory.

Theory cannot trump Truth.

laconicstudent · Oct 26, 2010

Oh the 2006 posts by jesusfreak made me lol.

ExistenceUnknown · Oct 26, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Let's skip it, EU -- that's just a side-issue to my point, anyway.

Just because there's another explanation, doesn't mean I have to buy into it, especially if that explanation is just a theory.

Theory cannot trump Truth.

Very well we can skip that, but I would love to see your definition of Scientific Theory. Can you qv me somewhere so I don't have to browse your gigantic post history?

You are right you do not have to accept it. But remember we didn't just come up with this theory out of thin air. The evidence led us to this conclusion.

We use truth to explain theories, not the other way around.

AV1611VET · Oct 26, 2010

ExistenceUnknown said:
Can you qv me somewhere so I don't have to browse your gigantic post history?

74

Split Rock · Oct 26, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Either that, or they were deposited there by a global flood.

Just because science can espouse an alternate explanation, doesn't mean we have to accept it.

Especially when alternate explanation is a theory -- (which means it is pending obsoletism).

Those fossils are inside the mountain, not deposited on top of it. A global flood is not a viable alternative explanation. Only one that the type of ignorance you pride yourself in would embrace.

AV1611VET said:
Let's skip it, EU -- that's just a side-issue to my point, anyway.

Just because there's another explanation, doesn't mean I have to buy into it, especially if that explanation is just a theory.

Theory cannot trump Truth.

Your "Truth" is nothing more than your own opinion. An opinion you can only defend by claiming it is God's Word, or "The Bible says so." Even when it doesn't. If I am wrong, then please go back to this thread and explain it http://www.christianforums.com/t7508706-4/

AV1611VET · Oct 26, 2010

Split Rock said:
Those fossils are inside the mountain, not deposited on top of it.

Oh, wow.

4000 years ago, and you expect them to just be lying on top.

I can dig down in my backyard and find a lawn chair or fence post.

Split Rock · Oct 26, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Oh, wow.

4000 years ago, and you expect them to just be lying on top.

Some are partially exposed due to weathering/ erosion. They are still from inside the rock, not deposited on top of the rock.

AV1611VET said:
I can dig down in my backyard and find a lawn chair or fence post.

So? Do you consider them to be fossils? Are they buried inside solid rock? Were they deposited on top of your lawn by a global flood?

Why Marine fossils are found on Mount Everest

I'ddie4him

Guest

Veteran

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency