Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon

EvC Forum has a set of Forum Guidelines that encourage civility in discussion, but that doesn't mean people have to withhold guffaws when outrageously boneheaded arguments are made. Being told you are wrong and are being duped by Creationist websites authored by people who probably know less than you do isn't getting personal. Is this how you reacted when teachers handed back your test papers? "Look, teach, you marked these answers wrong, and I don't appreciate your getting personal." Besides, this is an Internet discussion board, not a meticulously formal debate conducted within hallowed halls.--Percy

What the hell are you talking about?After having to be corrected upon the complete and utter nonsense you spouted about "Nebraska Man", you then spout even worse nonsense about Neanderthal and Cro-Mag. I point out that your nonsense is nonsense and you spout off even worse nonsense that doesn't even say anything.BTW, if you need to learn what Thermodynamics is and says, then do please read up on it and learn. Yes, determining whether a system is open or closed is very important when calculating its entropy (which doesn't mean what your creationist liars have told you that it does). If you don't understand physics, that is no reason to insult those who do.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

And that's not ridicule?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Nah, that's a blessing. No booze in the Southern Baptist heaven.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

cute

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Hey man how hard is it to call someone stupid? All I did was relate what Huxley said about Neanderthals and what Einstein said about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and I was called stupid. Those were not my words so does that make Huxley and Einstein stupid? I haven't read one explanation in this forum as to why they were wrong.The Oxford Debate was held in June 1860 at Oxford University, only seven months after the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species. A special meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, it marked a major turning point in England, Just as the 1925 Scopes Trial would be the turning point in North America. Scientific facts had little to do with either event; both were just battles between personalities. In both instances, evolutionists won through ridicule. As far as I can determin, no scientific facts were used in the debates, at least I can't find any recorded.Out of the sixteen members in this forum most are evolutionists and are quiet pleased to agree that I am stupid for beleiving Huxley and
Einstein about Neanderthals and The Second Law. I don't see any reason to take part in this forum if nobody will give an explanation as to why these two lions of science were wrong.Now that we have established that I am stupid and we have that out of the way can someone use no more than two syllable words to tell me why Einstein and all physicists are wrong about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I'm sure with such a distinguished group of evolutionists as this I will be enlightned with more than "I'm stupid for asking".And I would like to thank the administrator for pointing out that I was being to sensitive because it dawned on me that I am in pretty good company if Einstein, Huxley and most physicists are wrong also.

What, you're illiterate? Blind? We assumed you were reading the replies. One more time...It is unlikely for Huxley to have ever expressed such sentiments as, "Neanderthal bones belonged to people and did not prove evolution," as you claimed in Message 64, certainly not in 1856 as your originally claimed, and not even in the 1860 debate you just mentioned. In his 1863 book Man's Place in Nature he stated his opinion that Neanderthals, while possessing a number of differentiating features from modern men, were not so different that they couldn't as members of our own species, but he counted the differences as evidence of recent evolution in Homo sapiens. What on earth gave you the idea that Huxley, "ardent evolutionist and defender of Darwin" (your own words), would argue against evolution.Rudolf Virchow was long dead by the time of the 1971 Science Digest article you mentioned, and he never claimed that the Neanderthal specimen he examined was a human with rickets. He was a leading expert on rickets and merely noted that the Neanderthal had evidence of having had rickets as a child."Einstein and all physicists" were not wrong about the second law of thermodynamics. Einstein never had any defining role in thermodynamics that I'm aware of. It sounds like you're confused about open and closed systems. The second law of thermodynamics can be expressed in terms of both open and closed systems. For a closed system we would say that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. For an open system we would say that once the additions and subtractions of entropy crossing the system boundary are accounted for, the remaining entropy can never decrease. You're just very confused. It isn't Einstein and Huxley who are wrong but you. Either you're attributing to them things they never said and positions they never held, or you're misinterpreting things someone said about them.--Percy

Well help me understand your position. Is the Second Law correct or not? I'm sure I'm stupid for asking this question but humor me.

Why? What does that have to do with Neanderthals?

---

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

As noted the 2nd law is not a topic for this thread. If you use the search function (or google this site) you will find plenty of discussion about it here.You should note that the use of the 2nd law by creationists is blatant dishonesty and foolishness.You should understand that you have been lied to. Go to the appropriate threads and find out about it.

As far as we know, yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct.What is not correct, however, is creationist misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Second Law.All of which is off-topic, except for its demonstration of how creationists misunderstand and misrepresent just about everything they can lay their hands on.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

As already noted, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is off-topic unless you can somehow tie it in with Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man, but I can't help but wonder why you're asking if a fundamental law of physics is correct.I described the 2nd law in terms of entropy for both open and closed systems. Another way of thinking about the 2nd law is as the availability of energy in a system to perform work. Yet another way is in terms of heat where heat can only flow from hot to cold unless work is exerted to make it flow in the opposite direction.If you read at some Creationist website that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the universe is running down and that order and complexity can never increase, then they're lying to you about the 2nd law, but there's a kernel of truth in there. Closed systems can never decrease in entropy (entropy is the inverse of the ability to perform work), and if we consider the universe as a closed system then it is probably increasing in entropy (running out of available energy to do work), but not everywhere all the time. All it takes is the application of energy doing work to increase order and complexity, and the sun provides an enormous amount of energy to the earth every second. That's how sunlight turns seeds into trees, which couldn't happen if the universe were running down everywhere all the time.Again, this is off-topic. If you want to know more about thermodynamics, check out the Wikipedia's entry for the 2nd law. or join a thread discussing the 2nd law, or propose a new thread of your own.--Percy