or are you stupid. You have been shown multiple times how to correctly format quotes on this forum. If you click peek mode you can easily see how it is done.
As you may have noticed EVERYONE else follows this format. It makes reading a post much easier.
Do you think you are special? Since you have been shown many times how to use the db codes and you continue to not use all I can figure is that you are just refusing to. This makes you look like an ass.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Titanium was not invented in 1932. It is a naturally occurring element.
quote:Titanium is a chemical element with the symbol Ti and atomic number 22... The element occurs within a number of mineral deposits, principally rutile and ilmenite, which are widely distributed in the Earth's crust and lithosphere, and it is found in almost all living things, rocks, water bodies, and soils. The metal is extracted from its principal mineral ores via the Kroll process[3] or the Hunter process.
The law of abiogenesis says life cannot come from non-life.
There is no such scientific law. If you want to present evidence of such a thing please go ahead. Also, what does the 2nd law of thermo have to do with this discussion.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
There is actually no recognized scientific law of biogenesis either.
quote:The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
When you google "law of biogenesis" you will find hundreds of fundie and creationist sites and very few science sites. The "law of biogenesis" is a creo/fundie canard and nothing more.
Oh and I am still waiting for a response on what the hell the 2nd law of thermo has to do with anything.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which it states that everything tends to chaos, not order. Scientists do not deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Why don't you tell us what the 2nd law of thermodynamics states. After we are done laughing we will tell you what it really says and tell you how wrong you are.
I'll give you a little hint. You might want to read about it on some science sites before you answer. If you just repeat what the creofundy sites say you will be wrong, very wrong.
This is what is called a PRATT.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
YOu make claims about 2nd law of Thermodynamics and then when pressed to explain the law you cannot. All you do is go wildly off topic it to make some claim about support for evolution falling. Obviously you know nothing about polls either. Have you looked at the raw data? Did you look what was actually asked?
tThe scientific support for evolution is at 87% for all scientists and you make a claim that there is a lack of support for evolution. I think anyone, anywhere would love 87% support.
These polls show that scientists DO NOT entirely agree on evolution, and more than likely, specific points made by it.
No group of people entirely agree on anything.
You specifically asked me to show that scientists are not in agreement with any aspect of evolution.
I did no such thing. You might want to try to keep your arguments and who you are arguing with straight.
And yes you do need to show an understanding of the 2nd law if you are going to use it as a basis for your argument.
Or would you rather just admit you are wrong and the creofundy sites you got this from are wrong.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Why should dennis780 pr anyone else feel embarrassed when you and other evolutionists use talkorigins
If you actually read talkorigins you will see that they give references to their sources. Unlike the creofundy sites they do not make statements without a reference to a source.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Here is a fact for you, all they do over at talkorigins is setup their own straw men arguments to knock down has though they were serious arguments, and all that any creationist has, just like the evolutionists do here.
Evidence or example please.
since most of the arguments are about philosophy, rather than science.
Are you relying on those creo sites for your sources again. We have told you before that they lie.
You might want to actually look at talkorigins before you pass on lies.
quote:Claim CB200.2: The biochemistry of blood clotting is irreducibly complex, indicating that it must have been designed. Source: Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 74-97. Response:
1. The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.
2. Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).
3. Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn't imply design.
1. Davidson, C. J., E. G. Tuddenham, and J. H. McVey. 2003. 450 million years of hemostasis. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 1: 1478-1497. 2. Robinson, A. J., M. Kropatkin, and P. M. Aggeler. 1969. Hagemann factor (factor XII) deficiency in marine mammals. Science 166: 1420-1422.
The Law of Entropy refers to the amount of disorder, or order in a system. If states that left alone, the amount of disodered possibilities are many more than ordered ones.
Wrong! It says nothing of the sort.
quote:It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease.
I see you still refuse to actually look at scientific sources for your information about science. This whole order, disorder crap you creos keep pushing is bullshit.
Like I have told you before, go to a non-creo site. That way you will get a true scientific explanation about thermodynamics. Not creo bullshit.
Again, entropy is not the same as order and disorder. The creo sites are lying to you.
You have been told by many people that you are wrong, but you refuse to do the research to prove your assertion or to learn where you are wrong. You are like a mindless robot and/or are delusional. You can not change the law to be what you want. It is what it is. It is not what you claim or want it to be, no matter how many times you claim.
In a nutshell. You are wrong.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
I see you still refuse to actually look at scientific sources for your information about science. This whole order, disorder crap you creos keep pushing is bullshit.
Like I have told you before, go to a non-creo site. That way you will get a true scientific explanation about thermodynamics. Not creo bullshit.
Again, entropy is not the same as order and disorder. The creo sites are lying to you.
You have been told by many people that you are wrong, but you refuse to do the research to prove your assertion or to learn where you are wrong. You are like a mindless robot and/or are delusional. You can not change the law to be what you want. It is what it is. It is not what you claim or want it to be, no matter how many times you claim.
In a nutshell. You are wrong.
How does you cut and paste address this?
By the way you might want to read the forum rules.
quote:5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Ringo and Dr A have already responded to try to show you your error so I won't bother. You won't listen anyway.
What you are doing is exactly what the creo sites do. You search for a certain word and a certain sentence and use that one sentence as the whole argument. Read the whole wiki article, or better yet read a whole science article about entropy. Then if you really think it means what you have been claiming then you go try to make an argument for it. But let me give you some advice. No scientist thinks entropy is what you think it is. Because it isn't. You don't get to make up your own definitions and explanations of scientific terms.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Try these on for size. They may be a little complex for you since you seem to think wiki is a hard science site.
quote: is often asserted by creationists that the evolution of life is impossible because this would require an increase in order, whereas the second law of thermodynamics states that "in any natural process the amount of disorder increases", or some similar claim. "Entropy" is frequently used as a synonym for "disorder".
Of course, this represents a serious misunderstanding of what thermodynamics actually states. It can be explained patiently (or less than patiently, after the 1000th iteration or so) that entropy only strictly increases in an isolated system; that there are no completely isolated systems in nature, save maybe the universe as a whole; and that the whole idea of isolated systems is really an abstraction for pedagogical purposes; but still the creationist won't let go. There just has to be some reason why "order cannot come from disorder", and the reason must be in thermodynamics. That's the science that talks about order and disorder, isn't it?
In fact, it isn't. Look through any thermodynamics text. You will find discussions about ideal gases, heat engines, changes of state, equilibrium, chemical reactions, and the energy density and pressure of radiation. Entropy and the second law are powerful tools that allow one to calculate the properties of systems at equilibrium. At the very most, there may be a paragraph or two somewhere in that thick book alluding to some kind of relation between entropy and "disorder". Writers of pop science books like to make the same kind of relation, and will ask their readers to consider things like the state of their rooms--tidy or messy--and compare the (supposed) decrease in orderliness of the room over time to the "tendency of entropy to increase". But what of entropy and disorder? Where does that identification fit into the structure of thermodynamics?
The answer is, nowhere. It is not an axiom or first principle, it is not derived from any other basic principles, and nowhere is it required or even used at all to do any of the science to which thermodynamics applies. It is simply irrelevant and out of place except as an interesting aside. The only reason that that identification has been made stems from the different field of study called "statistical mechanics". Statistical mechanics explains thermodynamics, which is a science based on observed phenomena of macroscopic entities, such as a cylinder full of gas, in terms of more basic physics of microscopic entities, such as the collection of molecules that comprises the gas. This was a great achievement of nineteenth-century physics, led by Ludwig Boltzmann, who wrote down the only equation that connects entropy with any concept that might be called "disorder". In fact, what is commonly called "disorder" in Boltzmann's entropy equation has a meaning quite different from what creationists--and some writers of pop science--mean by disorder.
The equation in question reads:
S = k ln W.
That admittedly won't tell the reader much without some background. Boltzmann's entropy equation talks about a specific kind of system--an isolated system with a specified constant total energy E (although the constant E does not explicitly appear in the equation, it is implied and crucial) in a state of equilibrium. It tells us how to calculate the entropy, S, of that system in terms of the microscopic particles (molecules) which make it up. On the right hand side, k is a universal constant now known as Boltzmann's constant [1.38 × 10-23 joules/kelvin, for the curious --Ed]. The function "ln" is the natural logarithm, and the argument of the logarithm function is the quantity W. W is a pure number that connects the microscopic with the macroscopic.
quote:The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore prohibits biological evolution. This argument rests upon two misconceptions about entropy. • Disorder is a metaphor for entropy, not a definition for entropy.3,4 Metaphors are valuable only when they are not identical in all respects to their targets. For example, a map of Caracas is a metaphor for the surface of the Earth at Caracas, in that the map has a similar arrangement but a dissimilar scale. If the map had the same arrangement and scale as Caracas, it would be no easier to navigate using the map than it would be to navigate by going directly to Caracas and wandering the streets. The metaphor of disorder for entropy is valuable and thus imperfect. For example, take some ice cubes out of your freezer, smash them, toss the shards into a bowl, and then allow the ice to melt. The jumble of ice shards certainly seems more disorderly than the bowl of smooth liquid water, yet the liquid water has the greater entropy.5 • Although the entropy of the universe increases with time, the entropy of any part of the universe can decrease with time, so long as that decrease is compensated by an even larger increase in some other part of the universe.6 For example, any hot cup of coffee left to its own devices on a tabletop decreases in entropy.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
