Why the theistic evolution position is both unbiblical and impossible

[Kirkwhisper]

Apparently Kirkwhisper will only deign to speak to those who won't challenge him on well, anything. Confronted with conflicting views, and especially confronted with real science, his response is to ignore them.

You aren't telling the truth. You didn't make any 'challenge' to what I said, you just offered objections. And furthermore, you are too proud to be corrected either by the science or by scripture. So why bother with you?

 

[Keachian]

And you're somehow exempt from that assessment?

 

[sfs]

You aren't telling the truth. You didn't make any 'challenge' to what I said, you just offered objections.

Um, objections to your statements because they were wrong are challenges to what you said.

And furthermore, you are too proud to be corrected either by the science or by scripture. So why bother with you?

I'm not too proud to be corrected; I'm frequently wrong and have no problem changing my views when someone shows that I am. You haven't even begun to do that, though. You've been trying to correct me on subjects that by objective standards I know very well, and some of your statements have been flat-out wrong. Why should anyone take your certainty about Biblical interpretation seriously when you're equally certain, and quite mistaken, about science?

How about you? Are you willing to be corrected by Christians who have expertise in science?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Um, objections to your statements because they were wrong are challenges to what you said.

I'm not too proud to be corrected; I'm frequently wrong and have no problem changing my views when someone shows that I am. You haven't even begun to do that, though. You've been trying to correct me on subjects that by objective standards I know very well, and some of your statements have been flat-out wrong. Why should anyone take your certainty about Biblical interpretation seriously when you're equally certain, and quite mistaken, about science?

How about you? Are you willing to be corrected by Christians who have expertise in science?

Sure, when I am wrong..

let me change that: Get this and get it clearly, O equivocating one: you DID NOT refute what I said in the OP nor anything else I have stated either biblically or scientifically. It wasn't even close.

 

[Assyrian]

No of course not, the universe comes into existence without the need for an intelligent mind, the earth becomes suitable for life apart from an intelligent mind, life emerges unaided by an intelligent mind, endless waves of adaptive radiation unfold in all it's vast array without an intelligent mind, the human brain develops from that of apes without an intelligent mind, origins theology can be discussed without any reference to anything in creation being the result of a thought from an intelligent mind. Theology itself can be taken for granted because there is nothing to discuss because even redemptive history because a myth because there is no need for an intelligent mind in that either.

I get that as Creationist you cannot get your head around the idea of God creating natural processes and working throught the natural processes he had ordained. But what has this to do my answer to Ronald's anthropomorphized view of natural selection?

Think about what you are arguing against. Trust me, it will make no difference to me but it will make all the difference to you. I would ask you just one question, does God need an intelligent mind and if so what on earth has He been using it for because the Creator, apparently, can do everything in nature without a single thought being manifest in the process.

You mean like:
Mark 4:26 And he said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. 27 He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. 28 The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come." The only natural intelligence involved here is the farmer sowing the seeds, but Jesus is clear the farmer is not responsible for what happens. The seed grows into a new plant is what happens naturally, the earth produces by itself. Of course Jesus also taught us to pray to our Father for our daily bread, so while the process itself is completely natural, this is clearly all happening by the will and purpose of God

That isn't natural, beneficial effects from genetic defects (literally copy errors) are the weakest instruments to facilitate improved fitness.

So they are instruments to improve fitness. Glad you recognise it. The difference between beneficial mutations and natural selection within the existing gene pool is natural selection within the gene pool is limited to what is already there in the gene pool, not only that, the gene pool itself will keep getting smaller through mechanisms like like founder effects and with genes that are less beneficial in that environment being selected out. What beneficial mutations do is allow natural selection to keep operating beyond the limits of the existing gene pool and for the gene pool to keep be refilled as older genes are lost.

Who cares what the benefits of an expressed trait are if they don't have an effective cause in the first place.

You do realise they have the same cause as harmful mutations and all the neutral ones?

Adaptations occur from genes, fully developed, maintained and highly conserved and these random copy errors are no substitute for an intelligent mind designing them. Your hypothetical begs the question of proof on it's hands and knees. It's not about 'what it', the real question is how.

MY question was about how beneficial mutations are selected without anthropmorphizing natural selection. It holds whether you want to ignore all the evidence evolution in genes or not.

The structure of the molecule? But then, every molecule has a structure.

Are you serious?

You don't think molecules have a structure?

Darwin answered nothing because he asked nothing.

I take it you didn't check The Origin of Species to see if he asked any questions?

The Origin of Species (1872)/Chapter VI - Wikisource
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:— First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
​

Darwin goes on to answer the question in the rest of chapter 6 and chapter 9

Homology arguments never allow the inverse logic, fossil evidence either discovered or absent is explained away without an alternative to naturalistic causation.

Perhaps if Creationist came up with a better explanations of the fossil evidence, and explained why it fist evolution so beautifully, but in 150 hears they never have.

Oh and by the way, Darwin almost never mentioned evolution in his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species. He never went beyond the level of genus because nature never does.

Of course, that is where natural selection operates.

That is no minor point, Mendel said that he had noticed a strong tendency of hybrids to return to the grandparent form. That was a great thought, I really hope you don't dismiss it as minor or my remarks as sarcastic. I keep wondering when you guys are going to get it, the problems of how things evolve over time (whether little or a lot) are the same for gradualism as they are for the radical evolutionary adaptive radiation across broad lineal lines.

Actually Mendel thought there were two types of hybrids, the variable hybrids which reverted to one of the parents if you keep pollinating it with the one parent variety. You keep swamping the hybrid with traits from one parent and the traits of the other parent will disappear, simply though the statistical fact that traits aren't always passed on each generation.

But that was only one of the types of hybrids Mendel was looking at, he was also very interested in what he called constant hybrids which formed new species

Mendel's Paper (English-Collaborative)
We meet with an essential difference in those hybrids which remain constant in their progeny and propagate themselves as truly as the pure species. According to Gärtner, to this class belong the remarkably fertile hybrids Aquilegia atropurpurea canadensis, Lavatera pseudolbia thuringiaca, Geum urbanorivale, and some Dianthus hybrids; and, according to Wichura, the hybrids of the Willow family. For the history of the evolution of plants this circumstance is of special importance, since constant hybrids acquire the status of new species. The correctness of the facts is guaranteed by eminent observers, and cannot be doubted. Gärtner had an opportunity of following up Dianthus Armeria deltoides to the tenth generation, since it regularly propagated itself in the garden.
​

What Mendel was arguing against was the idea that variable hybrids provided the source of constant gradual evolutionary change, he wasn't arguing against evolution, or that you don't get new species, he was just arguing against one mechanism. I take it that is the same Gärtner mentioned in your sig?

To be brutally honest I think it's a mistake to even entertain the idea the creationism is opposed to evolution. As usual, we humans have managed to get the whole topic upside down and backwards. That requires a great deal of effort with both sides of the topic working continually and in concert to utterly distort the real issues beyond any reasonable recognition.

I am sure of one thing, getting that done requires an intelligent mind. The feeble minded and simple could never have developed such an elaborate distortion, not even with a million random efforts.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Or it could be that vastly intelligent mind you are struggling against is the one who created the universe, whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways.

 

[sfs]

let me change that: Get this and get it clearly, O equivocating one: you DID NOT refute what I said in the OP nor anything else I have stated either biblically or scientifically. It wasn't even close.

Close enough for government work.

Let's start with your first claim, that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Now, stellar evolution is the scientific description of the life history of a star, from its start as a collapsing dust cloud, through the initiation of fusion, various stages of fusion (depending on its mass), and to its end, which can take various forms. All of this is reasonably well understood physics, with the energy that a star emits coming first from gravitational collapse, and then from nuclear fusion.

You say this central process violates the First Law, which will be news to every astrophysicist on the planet. Please provide the calculations which show how it violates it.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Close enough for government work.

Government work? Now I know it's wrong.

Let's start with your first claim, that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Been there, done that. You don't pay attention to details that might correct your thinking. I gave you those details and you shoved it away prefering some half-baked high school understanding of the issue. Your position on matter/energy was wrong, but it seems that you won't even believe experts that agree with you on evolution in the first place, much less a lowly creationist like me. So why should I bother?

Now, stellar evolution is the scientific description of the life history of a star, from its start as a collapsing dust cloud

You're still out in left field. No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.

Astronomers have found a spiral galaxy that may be spinning to the beat of a different cosmic drummer. To the surprise of astronomers, the galaxy, called NGC 4622, appears to be rotating in the opposite direction to what they expected.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Reveals "Backwards" Spiral Galaxy (02/07/2002) - Introduction

Like this incredible backward spinning galaxy, God left enough anti-evolution anomalies in the universe in order that men might know that it was specially created by HIM...and did not evolve. I can list about a dozen of them. But evolutionists don't wish to catch on. They live in ignorance because they have rejected the Word of the Creator about His universe.

, through the initiation of fusion, various stages of fusion (depending on its mass), and to its end, which can take various forms. All of this is reasonably well understood physics, with the energy that a star emits coming first from gravitational collapse, and then from nuclear fusion.

Name one. First name a star OBSERVED (not a guess or extrapolation) that formed because gases somehow magically came together (instead of dissipating as gases do) against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and formed a brand new star. Give it's name.

You say this central process violates the First Law, which will be news to every astrophysicist on the planet. Please provide the calculations which show how it violates it.

I already proved my point but you utterly rejected the truth of it. Neither matter nor energy can be created; they can only change or transform after the available energy is used up.

Matter, occupies space, and has mass.

Therefore, quote: "The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products."

You said your position is commonly known. That isn't true either. It is only 'commonly' believed by those of your persuasion:

Quote: Question: can matter be destroyed?

Answer: NO, it can only change form.

For example, you make cake from a variety of ingrediants, so you are not creating cake. And when you burn paper, it turns into smoke which is a form of matter, so you are not destroying the matter.​

Read more: Can matter be created and destroyed​

I know this won't do you any good because you've made up your mind to live in ignorance after having been brainwashed by pseudo-scientists who don't know what they're talking about. But it might do some good for some earnest seeker who is willing to see through your nonsense.

Bye.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.

Of course nobody has observed a star from birth to collapse - a large star could live for 15 billion years. That's older than our universe. Furthermore, since it's not clear whether you make this distinction, stellar evolution is not not the same as biological evolution; since stars are not living things they do not reproduce.

I know this won't do you any good because you've made up your mind to live in ignorance after having been brainwashed by pseudo-scientists who don't know what they're talking about. But it might do some good for some earnest seeker who is willing to see through your nonsense.

According to this, real science is what you agree with and pseudo-science is what you disagree with. If the Big Bang is false, does that mean the universe had no begining and therefore has existed forever? Wouldn't that mean it didn't have a creator?

Bye.

Yeah right ...

 

[shernren]

You're still out in left field. No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.

Because this:

is totally evidence that some humans are born looking like children, some humans are born looking like adults, and some humans are born looking like old people, and they never ever change during their lifetime.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

To further support what I said on the matter of the universe degenerating:

Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up—so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."

[Isaac Asimov in The Origin of the Universe in the ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be video series (PO Box 200, Gilbert AZ 85299 USA: Eden Communications, 1983).]

He isn't the only evolutionist that was/is forced to admit the obvious:

Quote: 'When stellar evolution comes to an end, we enter the Degenerate Era'.

Five Ages of the Universe

Thirdly: quote; 'The heat death of the universe is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain motion or life.

'The idea of heat death stems from the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. If the universe lasts for a sufficient time, it will asymptotically approach a state where all energy is evenly distributed. In other words, in nature there is a tendency to the dissipation (energy loss) of mechanical energy (motion); hence, by extrapolation, there exists the view that the mechanical movement of the universe will run down.' Wikipedia.

More evolutionists who have to bite the bullet and admit the obvious: things are wearing down....

I can quote extensively on this subject but this is sufficient for now. The universe is degenerating, not evolving.

 

[Keachian]

and why does where we're eventually going to end up affect where we've come from or where we are now? Yes the universe is cooling, big whoop, it has no bearing on whether evolution is factual, on the formation of stars, it will have an affect on the formation of stars in the future but not now.

 

[florida2]

Government work? Now I know it's wrong.

Like this incredible backward spinning galaxy, God left enough anti-evolution anomalies in the universe in order that men might know that it was specially created by HIM...and did not evolve. I can list about a dozen of them. But evolutionists don't wish to catch on. They live in ignorance because they have rejected the Word of the Creator about His universe.

So something that is unexpected is proof that evolution didn't happen? If that was the case, there would be no science! Science is founded on people going 'Hang on a minute...'

Without those moments of confusion leading to research and discovery, we wouldn't know anything.

Do the neutrinos which possibly (I emphasise that word) travelled faster than light, which was unexpected, prove evolution wrong?

I know you've probably answered this question before - so apologies - but as you seem to take Genesis entirely literally, do you take every passage in both OT and NT literally? Do you follow all the commands of Leviticus? Do you think that women should not speak in church?

Peace be with you, friend

 

[Kirkwhisper]

florida2

So something that is unexpected is proof that evolution didn't happen? If that was the case, there would be no science! Science is founded on people going 'Hang on a minute...'

Then you wouldn't want to go to work for the FBI or be a CSI agent. You'd have real difficulty discerning definite evidence by an intelligent source as to that of mere happenstance such as wind, rain, accidents.

Along with what I said above, there are the planets that rotate the opposite direction as all the other planets; moons in retrograde motion to all the other moons; stars that have changed color within the time frame of human observation; the red shift of galaxial periodicity has pretty well been confirmed; Quasars that have gaseous star trails from galaxies when they are supposed to be the furtherest known objects in space. Shall I go on? Every single one of those flies in the face of stellar evolution and bear the hallmark of design by God telling you: "Your timing and theory of origins is wrong".

Without those moments of confusion leading to research and discovery, we wouldn't know anything.

Because you've accepted the Darwinian theory as it relates to stellar evolution you never will figure it out. You'll be guessing until Jesus comes.

Do the neutrinos which possibly (I emphasise that word) travelled faster than light, which was unexpected, prove evolution wrong?

You mean you are an evolutionist who believes something can travel faster than light....that something can break the speed of light? Wow. That's progess.

I know you've probably answered this question before - so apologies - but as you seem to take Genesis entirely literally, do you take every passage in both OT and NT literally? Do you follow all the commands of Leviticus? Do you think that women should not speak in church?

No. But understand what is and is not literal is not a problem, anymore than it's a problem grasping the non-literal nature of some of the things found in Shakespeare. I had an English teacher in high school who showed us step-by-step how to identify that which is literal from metaphors, similies, and even such things as Onomatopoeia. It was one of the best classes I have ever taken and it taught me how to make the distinctions.

For scripture, all one needs is to be an honest seeker of biblical truth and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There are so many bottom line reasons for believing Genesis to be literal that after one considers them there is no question that the acts of creation (six days) and the occurrences mentioned must be actual acts of history and the characters must be real. I stated those reasons clearly in my O.P. "Why Theistic Evolution is Unbiblical and Unscientific". You might consider reading it again carefully.

Peace be with you, friend

And with you also.

 

[SkyWriting]

I can quote extensively on this subject but this is sufficient for now. The universe is degenerating, not evolving.

To give credit, the universe evolves in the sense that it's changing.
Evolution IS the degrading of the Cosmos.
Evolution exists, it just doesn't provide anything of value other
than the ability to degrade and adapt to a failing environment.
http://news.discovery.com/space/heat-death-of-the-universe.html

 

[SkyWriting]

I know you've probably answered this question before - so apologies - but as you seem to take Genesis entirely literally, do you take every passage in both OT and NT literally? Do you follow all the commands of Leviticus? Do you think that women should not speak in church?

Those who literally follow the teachings of the NT
are not bound by the Rules & Regs of the OT
but are already saved by Grace.

This kind of confusion happens if you don't take the NT literally.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--

 

[Kirkwhisper]

To give credit, the universe evolves in the sense that it's changing.
Evolution IS the degrading of the Cosmos.
Evolution exists, it just doesn't provide anything of value other
than the ability to degrade and adapt to a failing environment.
Heat Death of the Universe : Discovery News

To be clear: that would be called de-evolution. More accurately, degeneration.

Best wishes.

 

[SkyWriting]

To be clear: that would be called de-evolution. More accurately, degeneration.

Best wishes.

If evolution is just plain old change, then the opposing force would be stabilizing factors.

UNG U 12q23-q24.1 NM_003362
SMUG1 U 12q13.1-q14 NM_014311
MBD4 U or T opposite G at CpG sequences 3q21-q22 NM_003925
TDG U, T or ethenoC opposite G 12q24.1 NM_003211
OGG1 8-oxoG opposite C 3p26.2 NM_002542
MYH A opposite 8-oxoG 1p34.3-p32.1 NM_012222
NTH1 Ring-saturated or fragmented pyrimidines 16p13.3-p13.2 NM_002528

Etc.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5507/1284.full.pdf

 

[Kirkwhisper]

If evolution is just plain old change, then the opposing force would be stabilizing factors.

UNG U 12q23-q24.1 NM_003362
SMUG1 U 12q13.1-q14 NM_014311
MBD4 U or T opposite G at CpG sequences 3q21-q22 NM_003925
TDG U, T or ethenoC opposite G 12q24.1 NM_003211
OGG1 8-oxoG opposite C 3p26.2 NM_002542
MYH A opposite 8-oxoG 1p34.3-p32.1 NM_012222
NTH1 Ring-saturated or fragmented pyrimidines 16p13.3-p13.2 NM_002528

Etc.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5507/1284.full.pdf

Since the defintion of evolution (the complete definition as it pertains to nature) is:

2a : a process of change in a certain direction : b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state. (Mirriam Webster...among others)

Then evolution and degeneration are opposites. They can't both be true at the same time.

Best wishes.

 

[sfs]

Government work? Now I know it's wrong.

Your sense of humor needs a check-up. I don't work for the government.

Been there, done that. You don't pay attention to details that might correct your thinking. I gave you those details and you shoved it away prefering some half-baked high school understanding of the issue.

I'm afraid you do not understand the situation here. I do not have a half-baked high school understanding of physics: I have a PhD in physics and something like 70 published papers in the field. (Maybe more -- I forget.)

Your position on matter/energy was wrong, but it seems that you won't even believe experts that agree with you on evolution in the first place, much less a lowly creationist like me. So why should I bother?

You should bother because you might learn something. My position on matter and energy was not wrong -- it's a completely vanilla, standard physicist position on them. Whether you understood that position I don't know, nor much care. What I want to do is focus on your claims about science.

You're still out in left field. No one has ever observed a star from birth, still less from a collapsing dust cloud. Those are mere hypotheses. You're so backward you don't even know that you are describing degeneration, not evolution.

Astronomers have found a spiral galaxy that may be spinning to the beat of a different cosmic drummer. To the surprise of astronomers, the galaxy, called NGC 4622, appears to be rotating in the opposite direction to what they expected.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Reveals "Backwards" Spiral Galaxy (02/07/2002) - Introduction

Like this incredible backward spinning galaxy, God left enough anti-evolution anomalies in the universe in order that men might know that it was specially created by HIM...and did not evolve. I can list about a dozen of them. But evolutionists don't wish to catch on. They live in ignorance because they have rejected the Word of the Creator about His universe.



Name one. First name a star OBSERVED (not a guess or extrapolation) that formed because gases somehow magically came together (instead of dissipating as gases do) against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and formed a brand new star. Give it's name.



I already proved my point but you utterly rejected the truth of it. Neither matter nor energy can be created; they can only change or transform after the available energy is used up.

Matter, occupies space, and has mass.

Therefore, quote: "The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products."

You said your position is commonly known. That isn't true either. It is only 'commonly' believed by those of your persuasion:

Quote: Question: can matter be destroyed?

Answer: NO, it can only change form.

For example, you make cake from a variety of ingrediants, so you are not creating cake. And when you burn paper, it turns into smoke which is a form of matter, so you are not destroying the matter.​

Read more: Can matter be created and destroyed​

I know this won't do you any good because you've made up your mind to live in ignorance after having been brainwashed by pseudo-scientists who don't know what they're talking about. But it might do some good for some earnest seeker who is willing to see through your nonsense.

I asked you to provide support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. I see a lot of handwaving here about energy and matter, but nowhere do I see anything resembling support for your claim. For your convenience, here is a standard statement of the 1st Law (from here): The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system, or ΔU = Q - W.

Now, would you like to try again? Please show how stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. Once you've tried that, we can move on to your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law and stars, and then the other claims you've made.

Bye.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Your sense of humor needs a check-up. I don't work for the government.

I didn't say you did. As usual, you don't read carefully.

I'm afraid you do not understand the situation here. I do not have a half-baked high school understanding of physics: I have a PhD in physics and something like 70 published papers in the field. (Maybe more -- I forget.)

I don't care how many papers you've published. Your position on natural law is in error and I revealed that from the scientific sources I quoted. Like I said; you don't believe them so why would you believe me?

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.

You should bother because you might learn something. My position on matter and energy was not wrong -- it's a completely vanilla, standard physicist position on them. Whether you understood that position I don't know, nor much care. What I want to do is focus on your claims about science.

And you are incapable of learning anything now that you're a PhD? I have daughter who is a PhD and she knows better than to believe the clap trap you dish out on this website.

I asked you to provide support for your claim that stellar evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. I see a lot of handwaving here about energy and matter, but nowhere do I see anything resembling support for your claim.

That's because you've got your hands over your eyes and your fingers in your ears and...



The handwaving is your imagination, O wise one; the defintions and applications I gave you are reality. 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.

For your convenience, here is a standard statement of the 1st Law (from here): The change in internal energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system, or ΔU = Q - W.

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?

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.

Now, would you like to try again? Please show how stellar evolution violates the 1st Law. Once you've tried that, we can move on to your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law and stars, and then the other claims you've made.

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.