|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Scientists cannot explain the first and second laws..they do not know why they are there and where they come from. It is quite frustrating because for all intent and purposes we should be able to live forever. Without those laws, life would continue to regenerate. There is no apparent reason for decay and that is why scientists and people in general have always sought that fountain of youth. They recognize that if they could just stop that pesky old law of entropy--we might find life everlasting : )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Mutations are only changes in already existing genes. All you get when radiation mutates a gene is just a varied form of what already existed.This process cannot change anything into something fundamentally different. I am not even sure that I would classify the ability to tan as a mutation. Rather, it seems quite good a design. It actually protects the skin. But this occurs within the framework of the type--and does not lend to evolution in the macrosense.
Mutations are changes in existing genes? So what? It is those changes that provide the "improvements" that creationists say can't happen, and that the theory of evolution says do happen. The very fact that those changes or improvements occur falsifies the creationist tenet of degeneration. By the way, I too am going to stop debating you. You have shown that you simply have nothing to offer. About the only thing you have provided us with is another example of what creation "science" really is -- religious apologetics, and the exact opposite of real science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That depends on what caused life, though Really!? How? The law is the law regardless.
Creationists believe that the evidence reveals that life cannot be explianed in terms of continuing natural processes but that some things must be attributed to completed processes that are no longer continuing. In this respect, both models simply need to address life as it continues under their respective models. In this regard, the laws of thermodynamics are only a problem for the evolutionists. But the idea that creatures emerged fully formed violates the second law of thermodynamics, so creationism is impossible to begin with. We see from the fossil record that creatures have emerged relatively recently so when did this process stop?
processes that are no longer continuing. Wait, what happened to the law of conservation!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dman Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
quote: You missed my point. Can you show me an instance where certain information was not known at the time, but was predicted by CS, and proven true? So you have no idea in regards to my other two questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All you get when radiation mutates a gene is just a varied form of what already existed. This process cannot change anything into something fundamentally different. How do you know that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Without those laws, life would continue to regenerate. There is no apparent reason for decay and that is why scientists and people in general have always sought that fountain of youth. They recognize that if they could just stop that pesky old law of entropy--we might find life everlasting Without the first and second laws operating life wouldn't function at all. They're utterly central to the ordered principles of chemsitry and physics that allow basic operations of the body to progress. Without the second law of thermodynamics your body couldn't digest food; your neurons wouldn't function and your whole body would overheat, for, at the most basic level, it's the second law that means that heat flows from hot things to cold and that chemicals difuse from high concentration to low. As a bit of an aside, and in partial answer to your first sentence: it's not really correct to say that the first and second laws operate on anything. They're large scale descriptions of what goes on at the lower level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Creationists only reject the idea of macroevolution--changes that take simpler forms and improve to more complex forms. You know what I am refering to. We reject that microevolution extrapolates into macroevolution. Mutatations and selection are a design implicitly present in the DNA code and cannot go beyond that which is already present. Improvement within a kind, yes. But even these so called improvements are really not improvement in the overall system. Too much mutation eventually leads to cancer.
That's okay if you want to stop debating me. I don't really feel like anyone here is interested in honest debate anyway. You all have a herd mentality and you are smug and oh so self-assured--as wrong as I know that you are. I really need to get this computer monkey off-my-back anyway!! Carry on. The choir awaits you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4778 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible. That is absolutely incorrect, but unfortunately it is typical. No creationist has been able to document what you have claimed.Here is a good I don't know much about science myself and i can hardly understand mathematic language, even less pages full of equations. But i have the sense that following your advices to get informed about what second law of thermodynamics really says would have been a smart move for Kelly, because each time the "2nd-law-shows-that-evolution-is-impossible" argument is on, on every forum i've been visiting and participating in, it's quite quickly turned off by people who have the honesty and the kindness to recall it's not a viable tool of refutal. By the way i guess Kelly might feel like there is some kind of league of evolutionists picking on her on this thread, but it's clearly not the case. I also would like to know what is creation science, if not what people call a straw man, and besides Ken Ham and his non-sense. Because even if i find the theory of evolution the most plausible, i like to hear intelligent and intelligible things from "the other side".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
Because the first and second laws of thermodynamics preclude it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
I believe that the models of evolution and creation come with 'Predictions" inherent in the theory itself and the evidence is about what already took place in the past. A prediction can be about something in the past (a fossil) if that thing is not yet known to us. Accurate predictions about the unknown are the real, beating heart of convincing "proof" of scientific ideas. If you can't make predictions, you're never going to convince anyone and nor should you - anyone can come up with an idea that fits the known facts; but for an idea to accurately predict something we don't yet know? Well, that's another matter, because it's deeply unlikely that an arbitrarily concocted model will produce accurate predictions. Creationism hasn't made these predictions, so it hasn't had predictions confirmed and thus no-one in science takes it seriously. And why is this? It's because it isn't science, and it has never even tried to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Because the first and second laws of thermodynamics preclude it. BULLSHIT! You're really a troll trying to make creationists look even worse that they looked before, aren't you, Kelly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4778 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
You all have a herd mentality and you are smug and oh so self-assured--as wrong as I know that you are. In the same sentence you say that the ones you are discussing with are "self-assured" and that you "know" they are wrong. Ain't it a little contradictory? I generally admire people who has enough stamina to make an argument or a discussion last that long, but at the same time, we all become circular when we refuse to read or listen objectively valuable arguments. This applies to me also, i can be quite hardheaded sometimes, i know it. What matters is that at one stage, i realize i have missed something. Anyway i don't want to bother you with this kind of details, because it has nothing to do with the topic itself. So what are the principles of creation science, besides having very old texts as a background? Edited by olivortex, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
The evidence confirms the creation model better than the evolution model. Most known facts that confirm the creation model were made long before Darwin, and by creation scientists.
As far as is known, the scientists of the past listed below believed in a literal Genesis unless indicated with an asterisk. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year. Early Francis Bacon (1561—1626) Scientific method. However, see alsoCulture Wars: Galileo Galilei (1564—1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?Johann Kepler (1571—1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy Athanasius Kircher (1601—1680) Inventor John Wilkins (1614—1672) Walter Charleton (1619—1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623—1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer Sir William Petty (1623 —1687) Statistics; Scientific economics Robert Boyle (1627—1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics John Ray (1627—1705) Natural history Isaac Barrow (1630—1677) Professor of Mathematics Nicolas Steno (1631—1686) Stratigraphy Thomas Burnet (1635—1715) Geology Increase Mather (1639—1723) Astronomy Nehemiah Grew (1641—1712) Medical Doctor, Botany The Age of Newton Isaac Newton (1642—1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the TrinitySee Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57—80, 1997)Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646—1716) Mathematician John Flamsteed (1646—1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy William Derham (1657—1735) Ecology Cotton Mather (1662—1727) Physician John Harris (1666—1719) Mathematician John Woodward (1665—1728) Paleontology William Whiston (1667—1752) Physics, Geology John Hutchinson (1674—1737) Paleontology Johathan Edwards (1703—1758) Physics, Meteorology Carolus Linneaus (1707—1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system Jean Deluc (1727—1817) Geology Richard Kirwan (1733—1812) Mineralogy William Herschel (1738—1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth) James Parkinson (1755—1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*) John Dalton (1766—1844) Atomic theory; Gas law John Kidd, M.D. (1775—1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*) Just Before Darwin The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry MortensonTimothy Dwight (1752—1817) Educator William Kirby (1759—1850) Entomologist Jedidiah Morse (1761—1826) Geographer Benjamin Barton (1766—1815) Botanist; Zoologist John Dalton (1766—1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry Georges Cuvier (1769—1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*) Samuel Miller (1770—1840) Clergy Charles Bell (1774—1842) Anatomist John Kidd (1775—1851) Chemistry Humphrey Davy (1778—1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp Benjamin Silliman (1779—1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*) Peter Mark Roget (1779—1869) Physician; Physiologist Thomas Chalmers (1780—1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*) David Brewster (1781—1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth) William Buckland (1784—1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*) William Prout (1785—1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth) Adam Sedgwick (1785—1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) Michael Faraday (1791—1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator Samuel F.B. Morse (1791—1872) Telegraph John Herschel (1792—1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*) Edward Hitchcock (1793—1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) William Whewell (1794—1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*) Joseph Henry (1797—1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer AIG Edited by Kelly, : No reason given. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5496 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
That's funny considering Darwin and all...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How does creationism not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024