Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agrees, there is nothing we know of in nature that can make or destroy mass (either relativistic or rest) out of nothing. (Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter.) Since nothing in stellar evolution involves either the creation or destruction of mass, your reason for mentioning this fact remains obscure.There is nothing in nature and/or the universe that we know of that will create matter/mass out of nothing and there is nothing that we know of in nature that can cause mass/matter to become non-existent.
Stellar evolution doesn't involve either a big bang or the creation of mass. Why are you talking about them? (And I'm condescending? You might go back and reread this thread and see who's been dishing out the insults.)Matter(mass)/energy cannot be created nor destroyed by any natural means that mankind is aware of and NO ONE ever observed it coming into being by some big bang,...nor by a little bang, nor any other bang. So you can look down your condescending nose at me all you wish but you are going to lose on this point every time.
I threw the most basic formula of thermodynamics at you because you previously misquoted said elementary formula, and because you're suppose to be demonstrating that stellar evolution violates that formula. For some reason you keep failing to do so, instead introducing all sorts of other topics.I don't need your lesson, sir. I taught it. And furthermore, why would you throw at me the most basic formula of thermodynamics which only describes the process of that well established law?
Entropy does not appear in the 1st Law. What are you talking about?So the change in entropy equals the heat divided by the temperature in Kelvins. And? That's half of it; but you assiduously avoid the disorder factor and that is where you and those of like persuasion are, in the end of things, going to fall flat on your faces.
No, because I was correct the first time. Tell the readers straight, Mr. PhD...are you a convert of Dr. Peter Atkins & his efforts to change the meaning of entropy? If so, then this explains your utter confusion on the issue. He's the fellow who has been obsessed with changing the definition of entropy/thermodynamics with the end goal of eliminating the disorder/degeneration factor from consideration. What a fool. He wishes to change a long standing defintion that was given us by people like Carnot, Boltzman, and Clausius.
But those brilliant men had some interesting things to tell us about entropy:
quote: 'if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.'
'One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems. This tells us that the right hand box of molecules happened before the left.'
Entropy
The issue is not difficult to grasp...at least not for those who have not been brainwashed into missing the point like you have.
Feel welcome to post others now. I don't think there is anything I say that will be beneficial to you.
I agrees, there is nothing we know of in nature that can make or destroy mass ...
...Still no sign of support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. Why do you keep bringing up entropy when the 1st Law has nothing to do with entropy?
sfs
For the other readers: So here is a PhD who is given direct answers from even the experts who helped formulate the laws of thermodynamics and he can't grasp what he is being told. Good grief.
1. He objected originally to what I said about the fact that the 1st law of Thermodynamics would not allow a natural origin for matter. Why has he changed the context of that statement to begin with?
2. He objected to what I said about BOTH the 1st law (Matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed) AND the 2nd law (in part: defined as the measure of disorder).
The 1st law prevents nature from creating matter and the 2nd law causes all things to become disordered....and THAT flies directly in the face of his so-called stellar evolution belief.
He says, "Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter."
Why? Einstein didn't. He said matter and energy were interchangeable, but he wants us to believe HIM instead of Einstein and those who agreed with him. But no matter how many times I have quoted the leading experts in this field on the matter he doesn't get it.
Quote: "The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change."
The truth is that he doesn't wish to get it. So I give up. I'll let other posters communicate with him. Good luck.
This ...this is a trainwreck. To put it simply it's a repackaging of the "I as a Creationist still don't get how entropy works and what a closed/open system is."
Really? Tell me what a closed system is and where we find one.
I can tell what ISN'T a closed system. I'll give a hint, it's a planet, sometimes people called it the third rock from the sun as a sort of slang. And that sun part...pretty important. See during something I like to call, "the daytime" there's this giant star out in space that bombards this planet with energy. That bombardment is why this planet is an open system.
If this is still confusing...well I'm sure a public school somewhere can slide you into a classroom for a short while to explain it.
Of course increasing entropy applies only to the entire system. Parts of the system can certainly have increased order. It is paid for by, e.g. heat transferred to another part. If this weren't true, you couldn't build a house or clean up your room.
Of course increasing entropy applies only to the entire system. Parts of the system can certainly have increased order. It is paid for by, e.g. heat transferred to another part. If this weren't true, you couldn't build a house or clean up your room.
Put another way, here's a creationist who's being told by one of the experts he claims to be following that he's misunderstanding the physics, and he won't consider for even a second that he's wrong.sfs
For the other readers: So here is a PhD who is given direct answers from even the experts who helped formulate the laws of thermodynamics and he can't grasp what he is being told. Good grief.
I objected to this statement: "Stellar evolution violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. 'Matter can neither be created nor destroyed' (wikipedia) by any natural process." I then challenged you to support your claim that stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. I am still waiting for you to do so. (You do know that stellar evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, don't you?) I also pointed out that your statement of the 1st Law was wrong, since it is.1. He objected originally to what I said about the fact that the 1st law of Thermodynamics would not allow a natural origin for matter. Why has he changed the context of that statement to begin with?
I said that physicists can create matter, because they can and do, using the most common meaning of "matter" that physicists use (which Einstein of course knew perfectly well).2. He objected to what I said about BOTH the 1st law (Matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed) AND the 2nd law (in part: defined as the measure of disorder).
The 1st law prevents nature from creating matter and the 2nd law causes all things to become disordered....and THAT flies directly in the face of his so-called stellar evolution belief.
He says, "Just leave "matter" out of it, since by the most common physicists' definition of "matter", we can create matter."
Why? Einstein didn't. He said matter and energy were interchangeable, but he wants us to believe HIM instead of Einstein and those who agreed with him. But no matter how many times I have quoted the leading experts in this field on the matter he doesn't get it.
Continuing to read in the same Wikipedia article, we come to the section "Exceptions", which states, "The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Another difficulty with the idea of conservation of 'matter' is that 'matter' is not a well-defined word scientifically, and when particles that are considered to be "matter" (such as electrons and positrons) are annihilated to make photons (which are often not considered matter) then conservation of matter does not take place, even in isolated systems."Quote: "The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change."
As I sit here, the pond down the street is slowly and spontaneously freezing. Ice has lower entropy than liquid water, and therefore the entropy of the pond is decreasing. The energy flow that enables this to happen consists of heat flow into the surrounding air (whose entropy is increasing in the process) and photons (far infrared) being emitted into the surroundings (and into space). No intelligent intervention required, no special mechanisms needed.It could be paid for with heat currency, but what energy would put forth the effort to do the work, why, and following what guidelines to accomplish the task?
And can you give an example of lowered entropy. Outside of your intelligence based examples.
Could you be more specific? I've defended and attacked all sorts of things in this thread, mostly in response to basic scientific errors from other people -- including some from you. In fact, you have one in the sentence I've just quoted. In microevolution, no adaptive mechanism exists within the code of an organism. Rather, microevolution happens when a genetic change occurs to the code of an organism, and then spreads in the population.To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism.
Of course it changes to a different organism; if it's got different genes, it's different, just as I am a different organism than either of my parents. What it doesn't do is change into a different species.But the organism does not change into a different organism.
If you think natural selection requires nature to have a mind that's overseeing the selection, then you don't know what natural selection is. Tell me, if it's below zero outside and you have two groups of rabbits, one with thick fur and one with thin fur, is one group more likely to survive? Does nature have to have a mind for the thick-furred ones to survive better?As for Natural Selection: So you think nature has a mind to order these things? That's a joke.
Perhaps your God is not sovereign over nature, but the God of Christianity is. According to the Bible, it is God who sends the rain to fall and the crops to grow, who orders the stars, who causes the sun to shine and who watches the fall even of a sparrow. Did you think those weren't also natural processes?How could you believe in God who is sovereign and designed all of creation and be double-minded saying that nature selected these changes by chance mutations? Either God did it or nature did. Make up your mind.
When someone makes mistakes about microevolution, I correct them about microevolution. When someone makes mistakes about macroevolution, I correct them about that. The same goes for electricity or astronomy or gravity -- whatever bits of science people are currently mangling (provided I know the science in question, that is).You are the one defending micro-evolution. There's no argument there.
Not in the code of the organism, but isn't a major source of variation in microevolution the differing codes of the entire population, with adaptation being a change in their frequency in the population?In microevolution, no adaptive mechanism exists within the code of an organism. Rather, microevolution happens when a genetic change occurs to the code of an organism, and then spreads in the population.To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism. But the organism does not change into a different organism.
To SFS,
You're defending micro-evolution, where an adaptive mechism exists in the code of an organism. But the organism does not change into a different organism.
As for Natural Selection: So you think nature has a mind to order these things? That's a joke. How could you believe in God who is sovereign and designed all of creation and be double-minded saying that nature selected these changes by chance mutations? Either God did it or nature did. Make up your mind.
You are the one defending micro-evolution. There's no argument there.
The odd thing is, throughout church history, up until the experiments of Francesco Redi in the 17th century and Louis Pasteur in the 19th, that is what Christians thought did happen, that God gave the earth the ability to produce living creatures Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds. They believe the earth still had this power God gave it, and that dirt spontaneously produced grasshoppers and flies, frogs and mice. You can read that in the church fathers like Basil, Ambrose and Augustine.I don't think there is any barrier between micro and macro evolution.
But neither one has the "smarts" to create life out of rocks lying in the sunshine. No matter how long.
I don't think there is any barrier between micro and macro evolution.
But neither one has the "smarts" to create life out of rocks lying in the sunshine. No matter how long.
The odd thing is, throughout church history, up until the experiments of Francesco Redi in the 17th century and Louis Pasteur in the 19th, that is what Christians thought did happen, that God gave the earth the ability to produce living creatures Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds. They believe the earth still had this power God gave it, and that dirt spontaneously produced grasshoppers and flies, frogs and mice. You can read that in the church fathers like Basil, Ambrose and Augustine.
They had the timescale all wrong, it took billions of years for life to evolve into mice, but the idea that God gave matter the ability to produce life still holds.
Darwinian evolution of living organisms does not exist and never did. "After his kind' is the rule of nature and always has been. God's Word is true and Darwin was wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?