Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2017 7:49 PM
346 online now:
Coragyps, DC85, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Son Goku (4 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile, Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,874 Year: 25,480/21,208 Month: 1,107/2,338 Week: 228/450 Day: 48/52 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 106 of 128 (519711)
08-16-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Creation Guy
08-15-2009 8:48 PM


Creation Guy writes:

Boyles Law and the 2nd law are Laws because we can prove them. They trump theories hand down. If you have a theory which goes against, as evolution does, the laws we know - one is wrong.

What has happened for a hundred or so years now is that the theory of evolution has been placed in a glass case and no law can influence it. No way. It is God in science. Laws do not effect it.

The moon has been impacted with meteors, sunshine, and comets for as long as we have. I see no order on the moon. the capture theory was disproved long ago as well. The only reason it hangs out, the theory not the moon, is that if it wasnt captured - it might have been created there.

The word create is the anti-thesis of modern science.

The second LAW of thermodynamics is often a law that is tossed about by creationists. This is a good argument because the law is one of entropy - that everthing from stars to cars are falling apart and winding down.
This means there was an ordered creation OR special evolutionary magic that only occurs when unobserved. Both of these events creation and evolutionary magic are unobserved and therefore the belief in either is not science it is religion.

Abiogenesis dictates that life can come from nonlife. Biologists might believe this to be true or they might want it to be true - but are unable to replicate much in a jar with all the right chemicals. Maybe one day they will along with the warp coil and deflector shield. Until such time abiogenesis is fantasy. Even when we do make it happen it only proves that you need intelligence to make life.

Evolution has broad meanings from stellar evolution to micro-evolution. I would submit that all but micro-evolution are theory. Stellar birth has not been ever seen to occur. Nova will tell you this if it asked directly. There are some dust clouds and some bright spots, but as fusion researchers know - a self sustaining fusion reaction is not easy - especially in the vast reaches of space where Boyles law dictates that gasses move to fill the container they are in evenly. the container being the galaxy - they would never choose to coaleces and even if they did would never tightly compact to form anything.

Boyles Law and the 2nd law are Laws because we can prove them. They trump theories hand down. If you have a theory which goes against, as evolution does, the laws we know - one is wrong.
Off topic material hidden


What has happened for a hundred or so years now is that the theory of evolution has been placed in a glass case and no law can influence it. No way. It is God in science. Laws do not effect it.

The moon has been impacted with meteors, sunshine, and comets for as long as we have. I see no order on the moon. the capture theory was disproved long ago as well. The only reason it hangs out, the theory not the moon, is that if it wasnt captured - it might have been created there.

The word create is the anti-thesis of modern science.


Off topic material hidden

Reading some of the posts on here by creationists and other want-to-be scientists has enlightened me the how much our education system is failing us. This is truely appalling and sad.

I guess I should start a new thread on this aka "Is our eduction system to blame for the pseudoscience spouted by creationists and IDers?". What do you think Percy and other moderators? Is this acceptable for a new thread?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Creation Guy, posted 08-15-2009 8:48 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 3:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 107 of 128 (519713)
08-16-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by cavediver
08-16-2009 7:02 AM


Stars do not form
Boyles law dictated that gasses have a certain spring quality which inderctly caused them to fill the containers they were in evenly. If there was no container, such as we have in the atmosphere - it fills the gravity well of the planet.

The atmosphere extends up to 75 miles out or so. Only the first 5 miles are anywhere near livable. Anything above that is too rare to support much life. Although some material and spores do make the journey in those reaches.

If all that was required to make fusion was just a lot of gas being in one spot how have we not been able to replicate that? We have worked on it for 50 years now almost.

I would also ask why no new star has ever been seen to wink into existence and all we have good hubble shots of is stars in nova or supernova status, close to 50 since we have been able to view them over the past half century.

Gasses do not move to fill the galaxy because if they are in a gravity well of a body they are acted on by that body and keep dispersion to the same degree that they are acted on. Re-read that a few times but this is WHY the upper atmospehere stays rare. If it was just based on gravity it would all slam into the planet an we would have compressed gas 2200 feet thick and nothing above it.

More simply hydrogen at 65 miles is acted on by weak gravity and will only move down to a level of where it begins to be acted on by more particles in such a manner that allows it to stay at or near 65 miles.

A case in point would be on the Apollo 13 mission when they jettisoned the urine - a fair amount of the urine stayed within a few meters of the vessel as it was being acted on by the vessels minute gravity. When the vessel got into the gravity well of the moon the urine satellites were pulled away. What does this go to prove?

Particles of matter do not clutter together in open space, nor do gasses. They keep their distance based on the gravity that they are acted on by. If they are not acted on by any gravity then they would move to equally distribute themselves across space - very slowly since nothing is acting on them except the random collisions in space of the wayward partciles.

By stellar evolutions account why is the Earth not a star? If gasses can coalecse in open space then they could certainly do it with a planet as a starter kit? if they cannot do it with a planet and the planet holds rare atmosphere out to 75 miles why would it be able to happen without the planet?

I would submit, and you all will hate me for it amd cast out my name as evil, that stars were all created because what we know about gases and gravity and physics does not allow stars to come about free of divine intervention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2009 7:02 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 5:48 PM Creation Guy has responded
 Message 114 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 6:37 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

    
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 108 of 128 (519718)
08-16-2009 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate
08-16-2009 2:20 PM


Attack the messenger
I am trying to attempt to get a handle on the practical magic behind stellar magic of creating stars. If gas does not compact itself how can stellar evolution ever get off the ground. No where has it ever been seen to compact - in fact we have hard physics that state otherwise.

This plays directly into thermodynamics - as a principal of increasing entropy until the system is at equilibrium. Which it is not at now. If stellar evolution cannot take flight then the whole of evolution falls because now you have a situation where God steps in to handle the steps that science has not yet figured out?
Off topic material hidden


Instead of God, evolution has magic which steps in to do what they have not yet figured out how to make possible. This is how I see it from my point of view and until we can see a star form this is how it will remain to be seen.

Please try to be somewhat less mean. I will not attack your triple doctorate in Astrophysics, Chemistry, and Aetheism as you should not attack my poor business degree and the CSE 101 courses I took.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 2:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2009 5:15 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded
 Message 110 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 5:39 PM Creation Guy has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1201 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 109 of 128 (519730)
08-16-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
If gas does not compact itself how can stellar evolution ever get off the ground.

Who says gas does not compact itself? Ever heard of gravity? Ever heard of Jeans Instability?

in fact we have hard physics that state otherwise.

No, we do not. Ar you going to continue to lie about astrophysics? As an astrophysicist, I'm finding it rather tiresome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 3:05 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 110 of 128 (519732)
08-16-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
Creation Guy writes:

No where has it ever been seen to compact - in fact we have hard physics that state otherwise.

Do you just make this up as you go?

How do you think divers get the bends? Nitrogen bubbles form in the divers blood as the nitrogen gas which was previously compressed and disolved in the blood expands. This expansion of gas caused by decompression can produce fatal results if it happens quickly enough. This is just one amongst thousands of examples of how gravity and atmospheric/water pressure can cause gas to compress or vice versa.

Creation Guy writes:

This plays directly into thermodynamics - as a principal of increasing entropy until the system is at equilibrium.

What system are you talking about with respect to entropy? What is its boundaries? Are you talking about the entire universe or a subset i.e. just one star, etc?

CG writes:

Which it is not at now.

What is at equlibrium? Be specific. Otherwise this is giberish.

CG writes:

If stellar evolution cannot take flight then the whole of evolution falls because now you have a situation where God steps in to handle the steps that science has not yet figured out?

Resorting to God of the gaps now. What a cop out. Besides this is a strawman argument you conjured up out of thin air. Stellar evolution is a verifiable scientific phenomena. All we have to do is take a look at our own Sun and see how the fusion of hydrogen into helium and other heavier elements occurs to understand the basics behind stellar evolution.

CG writes:

Please try to be somewhat less mean.

My motive is not to be mean or vindictive. It is to give you a wakeup call into reality. However, if being nice helps you understand better I have no problem with this.

CG writes:

I will not attack your triple doctorate in Astrophysics, Chemistry, and Aetheism as you should not attack my poor business degree and the CSE 101 courses I took.

I do not have a triple doctorate and actually do not even have a Bachelor degree (though I do have an Associate Degree in Computer Science). What I do have is healthy dose of the purpose of science and how the scientific method works.

Not to be mean, but there is a recurring problem on this board with people who have barely enough education in the subject matter to try to use scientific concepts to back up their worldview but not enough to really understand the concepts they are trying to talk about. Do some reading before sticking the proverbial foot in the mouth again.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 3:05 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 111 of 128 (519733)
08-16-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Stars do not form
A case in point would be on the Apollo 13 mission when they jettisoned the urine - a fair amount of the urine stayed within a few meters of the vessel as it was being acted on by the vessels minute gravity. When the vessel got into the gravity well of the moon the urine satellites were pulled away. What does this go to prove?

That a body as small as the Apollo 13 capsule can start the planet forming process?

Which in turn can lead to formation of a star?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 2:28 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 112 of 128 (519738)
08-16-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by DevilsAdvocate
08-16-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
Gas does not compact of its own accord. We can force it to. Gravity can act on it, but it does not happen to the point of stellar compression, whatever that may be.

Second the fact that stars age and die does not prove anything other that entropy. Stars are not being born. Show me one. I am not suggesting stars do not age and go from one phase to the next - they just simply cannot form. They must be created by some amount of intelligence. Again sustainable fusion reactions are not easy.

The entire universe is not at equilibrium. Not until everything is burned out and scattered to fill the container evenly - will it be. It is said that 14 billion years ago we exploded from a bang and now here we sit - everything all nice and orbiting and somewhat stable. I do not buy it.

There were 3 universe theories - Big bang and everything is expanding outward - filling more and more volume.

This would lead to eventual loss of all heat through irrecoverable heat loss and the components slowly wearing down as there is no way to recover most of it. Photosynthesis notwithstanding.

There was the oscillating universe theory - where it explanded and contracted in cycles. The entire universe. No mechanism for what would cause the contraction so this fell out of favor.

There also was, at one time, the steady state universe theory. that everything has always been pretty much as it sits now. This was picked up by the ID crowd so the secular scientific crowd rejected it out of hand.
Off topic material hidden


Do not be so quick to assume that all scientists are evolutionaries.

Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Roughly half are not. Half are. What we do have is a muzzle on the ID crowd that as soon as you mention it you are labeled as religious and tossed out of the party.

Wakeup call to what reality? The evolutionary model is one depressing reality. We do not matter, we are stardust stacks and have no value outside of our base components. That is a Mad Max
reality.

It is as though we all know there is an elephant in the room - called Design - and none of us are allowed to mention it? This does not seem like science it seems like censorship of ideas. A great many scientific minds were Creationist or did not engage the subject at all. The ones who were great evolutionaries have squandered there scientific life - chasing thier own tail around the Origins Question.

I will do my best to remain civil, but I reject evolution because it is inconsistent and depressing and if it is correct - then none of this life matters. I am not willing to do so.

I will quote a big time evolutionary to tell you what you already know:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

The say in law enforcement that confession is the strongest form of evidence - more reliable that eye witness or actual hard evidence.

Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 5:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2009 6:45 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded
 Message 116 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 7:09 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 3:45 AM Creation Guy has responded

    
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 2890 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 113 of 128 (519740)
08-16-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Coyote
08-16-2009 5:48 PM


Urine
No that a ship the size of a truck has gravity when it is not close to any other gravity well.

Also that the particles do not congeal onto the truck - they just float nearby as little gravity is acted on them they compress little.

Say if you could stop your vessel at L5 where there is zero or very little gravity well affecting you. Other than your own. Gas would - start gathering around your vessel. Within a certain distance around your vessell an 'atmosphere' would form. It would be very rare and maybe not even noticable, but gravity dictates that it would exist.

I remember from astrophysics that if you half the distance you quadruple the effect. Inversely if you double the distance you divide the effect by 4. This is the basis for how gravity wells function I would surmise. The farther you are from it the less likely you are to pulled into it - this would also go for gases.

What I am saying is that

Gases do not attract other gases. They are too light in the pants.

Planets do not attract enough gases and gases they do attract are held by a loose fitting gravity well that will not compress the lower bound gases to anywhere near fusion compression rates (whatever that is).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 5:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by lyx2no, posted 08-16-2009 9:01 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 114 of 128 (519741)
08-16-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Stars do not form
Creation Guy writes:

If all that was required to make fusion was just a lot of gas being in one spot how have we not been able to replicate that? We have worked on it for 50 years now almost.

Because the amount of energy caused by an increase in pressure and temperature is not enough is not enough to produce spontaneous fusion. It is not until the Coulomb Barrier is overcome that nuclei will begin to fuse together spontaneously to form larger nuclei.

It is only when enormous nebulaus clouds of gas, dust, and other material are large enough to create the Jean's instability phenomena that Cave Diver pointed out earlier that gravitation overcomes the internal pressure of the gas itself and causes it collapse. At this point stellar evolution is inevitable as the gas eventually collapses to the point in which the Coulumb Barrier is overcome and spontaneous fusion occurs.

Creation Guy writes:

I would also ask why no new star has ever been seen to wink into existence and all we have good hubble shots of is stars in nova or supernova status, close to 50 since we have been able to view them over the past half century.

Primarily because stars do not "wink into existence". Rather they slowly evolve over hundreds of millions of years as vast clouds of gas slowly collapse to form a protostar and eventually T Tauri star then mature stars.

Star formation pics:


Click to enlarge

Image of star 'birth' at the centre of the tiny Papillon Nebula observed using Hubble:

CG writes:

Particles of matter do not clutter together in open space, nor do gasses.

False. Then why do we see nebulae and other gaseous regions in interstellar space?

They keep their distance based on the gravity that they are acted on by.

It is gravitational forces that is bringing them together not keeping them apart. Other forces such as brownian motion and the internal pressure of the gas itself can resist this gravitational force but if the gravitational force is greater than these other forces than there the collapse of these gasous particles is inevitable.

If they are not acted on by any gravity then they would move to equally distribute themselves across space - very slowly since nothing is acting on them except the random collisions in space of the wayward partciles.

But they are being acted on by gravity. Everything has a gravitational pull on everything else in the universe it is just in different degrees of gravitational attraction and gravitational forces from some matter can overcome or nullify the gravitional attraction by other matter depending on the amount of mass and distances involved.

CG writes:

By stellar evolutions account why is the Earth not a star?

Because the solid surface of the Earth itself impedes gas from being condensed to a small enough area at the center of the Earth to create pressures and temperature high enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier, spontaneous fusion does not occur. Besides this would not be near enough gas to create enough gravitational force to overcome the internal pressure of the gas at the center and cause atomic nuceli to fuse together. Typical stellar birth nebulae can be hundreds to thousands of light years across.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 2:28 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 115 of 128 (519742)
08-16-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
Off topic material hidden
Roughly half are not. Half are. What we do have is a muzzle on the ID crowd that as soon as you mention it you are labeled as religious and tossed out of the party.

Your URL states 50 scientists. 50 out of several hundred thousand, that isn't much of a percentage, nowhere near the 50% you state.

The evolutionary model is one depressing reality.

Except at least evolution has evidence whereas creation/ID doesn't.
As for intelligent design, if there is a designer he/she/it is totally inept.

from WIRED Aug 2009 pg 026 writes:

10 WORST Evolutionary Designs

1) Sea Mammal Blowhole. Any animal that spends appreciable time in the ocean should be able to extract oxygen from the water via gills.Enlarging the lungs and moving a nostril to the back of the head is a poor work-around.

There a 9 others listed which are just as inept.

If there was a designer he is totally inept as per number 7 Human stomach. Can't digest cellulose which makes up an appreciable part of the human diet. Since cellulose makes up a large parts of plants which are eaten by many animal species and the others eat animals which somewhere back in the food chain, was a plant eater yet only termites have the capability to digest cellulose do to the bacteria in their stomachs that digest the cellulose. Good design would have all animals capable of cellulose digestion.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:09 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by traderdrew, posted 08-17-2009 1:24 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 116 of 128 (519743)
08-16-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
CG writes:

Gas does not compact of its own accord. We can force it to. Gravity can act on it, but it does not happen to the point of stellar compression, whatever that may be.

Baseless assertion. Gas does compact on it's own as you have already given an example of the gas in the atmosphere being compressed through atmospheric pressure and I gave an example of gas being compressed in the blood stream through atmospheric pressure on a column of water which itself is compressed through gravitation.

CG writes:

Second the fact that stars age and die does not prove anything other that entropy.

Actually star creation is the result in the decrease in entropy in a certain region of space.

CG writes:

Stars are not being born. Show me one.

I already showed you.

CG writes:

I am not suggesting stars do not age and go from one phase to the next - they just simply cannot form.

Baseless assertion. Please provide evidence why.

CG writes:

They must be created by some amount of intelligence.

Baseless assertion. Please provide evidence.

CG writes:

Again sustainable fusion reactions are not easy.

It is not only easy but inevitable once the Coulumb Barrier is passed.

CG writes:

The entire universe is not at equilibrium.

Agreed.

CG writes:

Not until everything is burned out and scattered to fill the container evenly - will it be.

With accelerating cosmic expansion this will never occur.

It is said that 14 billion years ago we exploded from a bang and now here we sit - everything all nice and orbiting and somewhat stable. I do not buy it.

You don't have to, but don't expect us to believe you with you providing evidence to support your claims.

There were 3 universe theories - Big bang and everything is expanding outward - filling more and more volume.

That is not really what the Big Bang theory asserts. The volume of spacetime itself is actually expanding or more accurately stretching. There is no 'outward' as 'outward' would implie there is something the universe is expanding 'into'. It is actually a misnomer people uneducated in astrophysics purport that the Big Bang is an explosion that through matter outward into empty space.

CG writes:

This would lead to eventual loss of all heat through irrecoverable heat loss and the components slowly wearing down as there is no way to recover most of it.

Yes heat loss is entropy but entropy can be reversed in an open system.

CG writes:

Photosynthesis notwithstanding.

Photosynthesis is just one of many examples of decreasing entropy in an open system. Other phenomena include the evolution and growth of life, the formation of crystals, net increase of energy from the Sun which drives climate and other natural phenomena on the planets and moons of the solar system, etc.
Off topic material hidden


CG writes:

Do not be so quick to assume that all scientists are evolutionaries.

Well, it depends on what you mean by a "evolutionary". Do you mean biological evolution or all types of evolution i.e. cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, etc.

Steady state theorists such as Frank Hoyle and others had no problems with stellar evolution. They just disagreed with exactly how the universe originated.

Roughly half are not. Half are. What we do have is a muzzle on the ID crowd that as soon as you mention it you are labeled as religious and tossed out of the party.

Bullshit. I would venture that most scientists are religious in one degree or another. The problem is when you bring the pseudoscience of creationism and intelligent design into credible scientific endeavors.

It is as though we all know there is an elephant in the room - called Design - and none of us are allowed to mention it? This does not seem like science it seems like censorship of ideas. A great many scientific minds were Creationist or did not engage the subject at all. The ones who were great evolutionaries have squandered there scientific life - chasing thier own tail around the Origins Question.

Mention it all you want. Just don't call it science. It is philosophy and religion not science.

I will do my best to remain civil, but I reject evolution because it is inconsistent and depressing and if it is correct - then none of this life matters. I am not willing to do so.

That is why we see millions of atheists who are miserable and committing suicide every day.

Most atheists I know (including myself) have families and enjoy very fulfilling lives.

I will quote a big time evolutionary to tell you what you already know:

That's nice but this is an argument from authority fallacy if you think this gives your position more credence.

The say in law enforcement that confession is the strongest form of evidence - more reliable that eye witness or actual hard evidence

So are you confessing you are wrong? Sorry you just walked into that one

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:09 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 117 of 128 (519746)
08-16-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Creation Guy
08-15-2009 8:48 PM


Boyles Law and the 2nd law are Laws because we can prove them. They trump theories hand down. If you have a theory which goes against, as evolution does, the laws we know - one is wrong.

I know Coyote already tried to explain laws and theories to you, but here is a site that gives a good run down.
http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

quote:
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Theories never grow up to be laws.

Please explain how TOE goes against any Scientific Laws.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Creation Guy, posted 08-15-2009 8:48 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2274 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 118 of 128 (519750)
08-16-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 6:29 PM


All Over
More simply hydrogen at 65 miles is acted on by weak gravity and will only move down to a level of where it begins to be acted on by more particles in such a manner that allows it to stay at or near 65 miles.

Gravity at 65 miles up is 40002÷40652=.968 of surface gravity. The average man would weight only 5 lbs. less. Hardly weak.

Gas does not compact of its own accord.

Given enough gas that their mutual gravitational attractions over come their kinetic energies they will. You say so yourself in half a dozen posts and then seem to ignore it.

Show me [a star being born].

Sure, why not? Look over that way for 100,000 years. Don't blink.
Off topic material hidden


This was picked up by the ID crowd so the secular scientific crowd rejected it out of hand.

The ID crowd were unheard of in Hoyle's day. Did you mean Creationists? Regardless, It was rejected because it violated the laws of conservation of mass and energy; not to spite Creationists. Don't flatter yourself, Creationists are only considered when they start gunking up the windshield like mayflies. The simplistic ideas of Creationist are never of any concern.

Roughly half are not.

Stats on that?

Wakeup call to what reality? The evolutionary model is one depressing reality. We do not matter, we are stardust stacks and have no value outside of our base components. That is a Mad Max reality.

I exist so that I can laugh uproariously when other people fart. That is a much better reason for existing then is praising despotic deities. And Mad Max did have that cool car.

I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian…

And I'm that junior Keebler elf. (I'm taking on the Quisp persona to gain credibility when I talk about stars taking 100,000 years to be born.)

The say in law enforcement that confession is the strongest form of evidence - more reliable that eye witness or actual hard evidence.

So, how many of the dozens of confessors to the John Bena Ramsey murder were telling the truth. Dude, you are making stuff up.

No that a ship the size of a truck has gravity when it is not close to any other gravity well.

The ship has the exact same gravity when it's spinning itself into a black hole — and after it's done. (though it does lose its identity as a ship.)

Also that the particles do not congeal onto the truck - they just float nearby as little gravity is acted on them they compress little.

If there were enough gravity to keep them hanging around there's more then enough to pull them in. Gravity is an attracting force; not a sit-there-at-a-distance force.


I remember from astrophysics that if you half the distance you quadruple the effect. Inversely if you double the distance you divide the effect by 4. This is the basis for how gravity wells function I would surmise. The farther you are from it the less likely you are to pulled into it - this would also go for gases.

The rules of Newtonian gravity are really quit simple. Most of us here, if we didn't understand them, would shut-up and listen to someone who did. Now explains to me how gases dose not attract other gasses and stuff and junk.

Edited by lyx2no, : Formating.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:29 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 119 of 128 (519808)
08-17-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by bluescat48
08-16-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Not Siding with or Attacking any Messenger
Off topic material hidden
You would have to prove to this advocate of ID that the more improved design would indeed be an improvement or complimentary to the overall design. In other words, are those claims potentially falsifiable?

Sea Mammal Blowhole. Any animal that spends appreciable time in the ocean should be able to extract oxygen from the water via gills.Enlarging the lungs and moving a nostril to the back of the head is a poor work-around.

Mammals have faster metabolisms than fish. Gills are apparently insufficient for mammal metabolism. Link provided here:

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/08/why-whales-dont-have-gills.html

In fact, I have read a report on biomimicry that reported the following:

Dr Frank Fish, an expert on how animals move, based at the University of West Chesterfield in Pennsylvania, was looking at a sculpture of a humpback whale, when he realised that the artist had put bumps on the whale's flippers. That made no sense: everyone knew that the leading edge of a wing had to be smooth and streamlined.

The gallery owner, however, assured Dr Fish that the bumps were in the right place. Intrigued, the doctor made a thorough investigation. What he discovered was that the mysterious bumps were precisely the right shape, and located in precisely the right places, to make even an animal as cumbersome as a whale extremely agile, as the bumps produce vortices that generate more lift and reduce drag.

Can't digest cellulose which makes up an appreciable part of the human diet. Since cellulose makes up a large parts of plants which are eaten by many animal species and the others eat animals which somewhere back in the food chain,

Once again, I would remain skeptical until you could prove that a human would benefit from digesting cellulose. Cellulose apparently serves another purpose. It is a fiber and serves as helping move food through the digestive tract quickly and efficiently.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2009 6:45 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by bluescat48, posted 08-17-2009 3:00 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1747 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 120 of 128 (519817)
08-17-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by traderdrew
08-17-2009 1:24 PM


Re: Not Siding with or Attacking any Messenger
Off topic material hidden
My point is not necessarily that these faults or shortcomings are just simply something that an intelligent designer should have done something about, on the other hand the whale blowhole is there, do the evolution of whales from artiodactylous ungulates. What I'm saying as to design, the designs don't necessarily promote the idea of the using of intelligence.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by traderdrew, posted 08-17-2009 1:24 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017