Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9048 total)
489 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 488 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,575 Year: 5,221/14,102 Month: 142/677 Week: 1/26 Day: 1/2 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 68 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006

Message 121 of 128 (520017)
08-19-2009 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 6:09 PM

Creationist Gibberish
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.

You have assertion on your side. Physicists have the laws of nature on theirs.

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.

No, that is not what is said.

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.

Which is what is happening. Score one for physics.

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.

This is the funniest lie in your whole ream of nonsense.

The champion of the steady-state hypothesis was Hoyle, a fanatical atheist who hated the Big Bang (originally proposed by a Catholic priest) because it gave credence to the idea that the universe had an origin in time and so possibly a creator. Obviously Hoyle's idea that "everything has always been pretty much as it sits now" does away with a moment of creation and so with even the possibility that the universe had a creator.

It was rejected because it turned out to be wrong. The "ID crowd" did not at that point exist, and no creationist embraced Hoyle's atheistic doctrine, nor, I wager, would they have done so even if it had turned out to be true.
Off topic material hidden

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


Roughly half are not. Half are.

OK, that was even funnier. Can you really not tell the difference between 50 scientists and 50% of scientists?

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.

If the ID crowd have been muzzled, as you claim, why do they never shut up?

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.

No, you guys are allowed to talk trash all you like. And the rest of us are free to laugh at what idiots you are. This is not censorship.

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.

Here are some of the Nobel Prize winners who have, according to you, "squandered their scientific lives", though obviously not to the point of not winning Nobel Prizes:

The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept [...] Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.

---Nobel Laureates: Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

If only you'd "squandered" your life in such a manner, perhaps you wouldn't be a nobody posting scientifically illiterate rubbish on the Internet.

Your ignorance of everything is depressing. Go and learn something. Anything, it's all good.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:09 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-19-2009 5:22 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 1:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Posts: 3938
Joined: 09-26-2002

Message 122 of 128 (520029)
08-19-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2009 3:45 AM

Please tone down the hostility
Too much "cranky" getting into you message.



New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2009 3:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4348 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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by AdminNosy, posted 08-22-2009 2:21 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 2:31 PM Creation Guy has responded

Administrator (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003

Message 124 of 128 (520602)
08-22-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Creation Guy
08-22-2009 1:15 PM

Creation Guy,

one of the things we try to do around here is to keep each thread reasonable well focused on a topic.

Your post is all over the map. Please do not post like this again.

You can take each of your many issues to appropriate threads or start one if you can't find a good place.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 1:15 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 7:18 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 125 of 128 (520603)
08-22-2009 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Creation Guy
08-22-2009 1:15 PM

Re: Creation
Off topic material hidden
Evolutionism is a secular religion.

What about us Christians who have realized through independent study that the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation for how species evolve and that it can explain the diversity of life on Earth?

My religion is Christianity, not Evolutionism. Or do you think that I have 2 religions? Or are you just going to claim that I'm not a True ChristianTM?

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

Yeah, but how many Steves so they have?

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 1:15 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 2:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Creation Guy, posted 08-22-2009 3:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4348 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 not yet responded

Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 4348 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 not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 128 of 128 (520641)
08-22-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by AdminNosy
08-22-2009 2:21 PM

Re: Topic!
Sorry, I didn't see this before I hit the reply button.

I'll start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by AdminNosy, posted 08-22-2009 2:21 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021