Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
279 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 272 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,254 Year: 4,366/6,534 Month: 580/900 Week: 104/182 Day: 11/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009

Message 103 of 128 (519649)
08-15-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
04-12-2004 4:43 PM

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.
Off topic material hidden

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.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 4:43 PM RAZD has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2009 10:26 PM Creation Guy has taken no action
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2009 7:02 AM Creation Guy has replied
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 2:20 PM Creation Guy has replied
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 08-16-2009 7:57 PM Creation Guy has taken no action

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2009 5:48 PM Creation Guy has replied
 Message 114 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 6:37 PM Creation Guy has taken no action

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2009 5:15 PM Creation Guy has taken no action
 Message 110 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 5:39 PM Creation Guy has replied

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 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

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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 08-16-2009 6:45 PM Creation Guy has taken no action
 Message 116 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 7:09 PM Creation Guy has taken no action
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 3:45 AM Creation Guy has replied

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 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

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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by lyx2no, posted 08-16-2009 9:01 PM Creation Guy has taken no action

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009

Message 123 of 128 (520601)
08-22-2009 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 3:45 AM

Off topic material hidden

Again you have groups of scientists that spend entire careers convincing others that they are not promulgating a religion of secularity. Evolutionism is a secular religion.

There have been a good amount of scientists in the past that have subscribed to biblical creation as fact:

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However
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
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 Trinity—See 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*)
Timothy 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
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist

I have seen the pictures of the warm gas clouds of the crab nebula - what I do not see is a new star.

Fusion is not an accident. If you can show me some fusion accident occurring somewhere - now that is science. If you say it occurs unseen - then it is religion. New stars do not form - we have never seen one form. We only see them die.

Just because someone gives you a prize does not mean you did something productive. The Smithsonian has been handing out grants and props to scientists who push the ball forward in the field of evolutionism. Nobel is no better.

What I am saying, and what you all will tear apart, is that no new discoveries are attributed to evolutionism. They are always just trying to prove it correct. In science you cannot prove anything - IT IS NOT MATH. Only math has proofs.

Evolutionism can never be proved.
Creation can never be proved.

For these reasons both are religions. One just has science at its back trying to push it into science fully. Just because you call it not a religion does not make it so.

Religion, as defined by webster:

> a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
> a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The big bang requires faith - neither you nor I were there. Since no one was there. It must be accepted on faith and faith alone.

When you insert that faith into 'science' or call it science or pass it off as science you are misleading people. You are also causing evolutionism to be a religion because you must have faith that big bang happened.

In creation we to must also have faith. We will tell you up front that it is a religion. We have science and we have scientists (at least 50 of them that published - lols ) There is entire field of creation science.

The two peoples are not alike at all. One can look at the Grand Canyon and see what happened in a couple months when Grand and Hopi lake drained through here. The other will study it for a hundred years trying to figure out were all the sediment went - 1800 cubic miles of it. (it shot out into the Gulf of california pushed by a massive flood) (if it would have happened slowly the deposition would have occured at the delta)

Google the hydroplate theory while you fume too. It does well how to explain why plate tectonics makes no sense at all.

I mean really if you push a continent at 1cm a year - but it erodes at the far beach at about a yard a year - then how far did you push it?

A: -90.44cm headway (you push to slow tectonics)

Sure the Haiwan islands build themselves, but what about Florida? No feature exists to pull sand back ashore. It has been eroding away for how long - millions of years ? thats millions of yards of erosion.

In fact I could call erosion the number one enemy of a millions of year old earth proponents. there simply is not enough of it anywhere.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 3:45 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by AdminNosy, posted 08-22-2009 2:21 PM Creation Guy has taken no action
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 2:31 PM Creation Guy has replied

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009

Message 126 of 128 (520606)
08-22-2009 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
08-22-2009 2:31 PM

Re: Creation
Off topic material hidden
Christian - loosely means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To another degree it would mean one who believes Christ was more than just a man - the Son of God. Now as the Son of God what he says is gospel, at least for we Christians. That being said.

Mark 10:6
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.

As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.

What I cannot fathom is how you can say you are a Christian, but do not believe the words of Christ. You are trusting the suppositions and a belief they hold over acts they never saw (evolution)- over Christ?

I know of the theistic evolution and the two could not be more at odds. In one time is the miracle worker, in the other God is the miracle worker.

I'll end this post before I wander off too far - but being a Christian and being also a believer in evolutionism is at odds with one another at every level. At worst you are not a Christian (since you do not believe that He is God) see John 8:24), at best you are a confused Christian.

It is rough being a biblical fundamentalist.

Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

This would lend credence to Genesis as well.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4569 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009

Message 127 of 128 (520607)
08-22-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
08-22-2009 2:31 PM

natural selection selects
Off topic material hidden
The abundance of species was provided at creation. We have been losing them ever since. Natural selection is definite - it selects the stronger and defeats the weaker. However this is not a method for creating new species - it is a method of sending species the way of the dodo - extinct.

Men have bred diversity into dogs. But they are all of the same kind. They are all still dogs - we cannot make them cats. Nor on a planet of solely of dogs would a cat ever be born on accident.

If you would like to counter with random mutation providing new species I would point to the fruit fly - which had been bred 3000 generations by Darwin or one of his prodigy. None developed anything new - some had no wings. They all remained flies, and showed no marked improvements.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022