Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Infuriating arguments
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 16 of 56 (665906)
06-19-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
06-19-2012 9:41 AM


I've seen that kind of thing before (as have we all), where the creationist or the creationist's creationist source had glommed onto some tidbit of an actual fact and then misconstrued it completely, sometimes by mixing it up with something entirely different, and now the creationist you're talking with is completely convinced of that gross misconstrual.
For example, I once got an email from a creationist of high school age who had just been taught in Christian summer camp that the sun loses half its mass every year. My response was to point out several consequences were that to be true and to demonstrate that none of those consequences are found to exist. He ended up realizing that that claim isn't true, plus my searching for some trace of that claim led me to Kent Hovind's infamous solar-mass-loss claim. Now, it is true that the sun loses a lot of mass due to the fusion reaction in its core (about 4.6 million tons per second), though it is miniscule compared to the sun's total mass. It is also true that it is in the sun's core that this fusion reaction, and hence the loss of mass, occurs. It is also true that the sun's core, which accounts for a small part of its volume (either about 1.5% or 15%; I can't remember which), contains half the sun's mass. Somehow, a creationist had gathered those facts and, having no understanding of the science, got it all jumbled up and confused everything together into a claim that the sun loses half its mass every year.
So your creationist heard or read about the earth's atmosphere filtering out some of the sun's radiation (eg, the filtering out of a lot of UV light by the ozone layer) and had misconstrued that to mean that it filters out all the radiated energy from the sun; more likely than not, he had heard that from another creationist. In either case, he's understanding of science is so meager that he cannot perform the simplest of tests of that claim to find how mind-bogglingly bogus it is.
That the earth is not a closed system is supported not only by the myriad observations of solar energy entering it, but also by the energy leaving it. Here in Southern California we will get our "Santa Ana Winds", strong dry, usually hot, winds which blow in from the desert. During Santa Ana conditions, humidity plummets and the night skies are completely clear. That can make the nights can be much colder than normal through radiation cooling. During the daytime the earth absorbs heat from the sun and then radiates it off at night. Normally, clouds and moisture in the air will reflect part of that heat back down, or at least trap it kind of like a blanket would. But in the clear-sky Santa Ana conditions, there's nothing to stop or trap that heat radiating out and the night is much colder.
And, yes, all we can see of anything is the light it either emits or is reflected off of it. But my question is what point or claim your creationist was trying to make based on that simple fact.
And I would be tempted to ask, since evolution is just the accumulative results of life doing what life normally does, then if evolution violates the laws of thermodymanics, so would life itself. Which means that the creationist's case is that life cannot possibly exist. I believe we may be able to find a few examples that would contradict that conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 9:41 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 3:41 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 17 of 56 (665908)
06-19-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
06-19-2012 3:14 PM


The problem comes when an admin weighs in with a wall of text to prove our solar power denier correct. Honestly this shower have to be seen to be believed. The worst of it is that I'm a Christian, a Roman Catholic and a scientist which gives me a foot in both camps, yet the condemnation is strong. They're even banning pastors!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2012 3:14 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2012 3:53 PM Trixie has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 18 of 56 (665913)
06-19-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Trixie
06-19-2012 3:41 PM


Well, unfortunately that is how Christians roll when they acquire power.
Years ago I was on a Yahoo groups forum that had multiple moderators from both sides and everything ran smoothly. Then the moderators started dropping out until all that was left was one single creationist moderator. He became a tyrant who allowed the creationists to post anything and suspend their opponents just for asking a creationist to try to support one of his claims. Earlier this year, I signed onto a Christian-run forum where I was not only suddenly banned without any kind of warning or explanation, but the topic I had opened was deleted and all my posts in other topics were deleted. Not only was any trace of my very existence eliminated, but attempts to connect to their site with the browser trying to log me in automatically result in a 404 page: site does not exist.
That kind of gross misconduct and abuse of power is exactly what I would expect to see should Christianity seize political power. May that never happen!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 3:41 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 4:02 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 19 of 56 (665914)
06-19-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by dwise1
06-19-2012 3:53 PM


There is one particular admin who is the bane of everyone's life. He continues to go on and on about "regurgitating pablum which you haven't critically examined" (this on molecular biology which he hasn't studied, doesn't understand and in reply to a molecular biologist ie me), "you haven't done your due diligence", "historiographically sound historicity of the scholastic method" and his very favourites "you lie", "you twist", "you misrepresent". He's "proved" that any small amout of energy from the sun that reaches us can't be used to show evolution doesn't viololate the 2LoT because chloroplasts die. Also that by definition, energy input into a system can only increase the entropy. I'm losing the will to live!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2012 3:53 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Genomicus, posted 06-19-2012 4:15 PM Trixie has replied
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2012 8:38 PM Trixie has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 20 of 56 (665915)
06-19-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Trixie
06-19-2012 4:02 PM


Keep up the will to live Trixie, there are still some people left on this little planet that act and think reasonably
But, seriously, this admin you're talking about seems to have a problem with coherence. What is "historiographically sound historicity of the scholastic method" supposed to mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 4:02 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 4:23 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 22 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 4:34 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 21 of 56 (665916)
06-19-2012 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Genomicus
06-19-2012 4:15 PM


You tell me, he's even made it onto the pages of FSTDT because of his fondness for using every derivation of history in three lines and the one sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Genomicus, posted 06-19-2012 4:15 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 22 of 56 (665917)
06-19-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Genomicus
06-19-2012 4:15 PM


Read it and weep
Here's a wee taster from FSTDT by this joke of an admin
"...if you read my first post carefully you will see that the axe-grinding comment was to Timothy who was trying to dismiss the scholastically-accepted historical fact that scholars who use the historical context via the grammatical historical method which relies on the critical realist approach to historiography for the historical part of the grammatical-historical method, accept the obvious conclusion on the genealogy of Mary being listed through Jospeh as was the custom of the time for the inheritance and land ownership purposes"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Genomicus, posted 06-19-2012 4:15 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 23 of 56 (665919)
06-19-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
06-19-2012 9:41 AM


Trixie writes:]
I've just struggled through thousands of words of stupid trying to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics to someone who claims that evolution violates it.
I've been dealing with that over the last year or two, with Granville Sewell. However, I didn't try very hard and mostly used it as a source of amusement. I suggest that you do likewise.
It is quite impossible for somebody, even a mathematician, to understand 2LoT, if their religion requires that they not understand it.
Edited by nwr, : fix typo

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 9:41 AM Trixie has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 24 of 56 (665920)
06-19-2012 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
06-19-2012 11:11 AM


Percy writes:]
I guess if energy from the sun can't reach the Earth's surface then "solar energy" must just be a misnomer.
At least they are consistent. Most creationists are also global warming denialists.
Edited by nwr, : fix typo

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 06-19-2012 11:11 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 25 of 56 (665922)
06-19-2012 6:59 PM


The stupid, it burns!
Last night someone who was arguing for a 6000 year old earth and a global flood supported their position by linking to information on ice ages dated to 11,000 and 14,700 years ago. Another genius tried to cast doubt on carbon-dating by pointing out problems specific to K/Ar dating then linking to a page which exposed the errors in the usual arguments against carbon-dating, so refuting himself.
Also we've had demands for the genealogy and trade records for the Neolithic period in Northern Ireland.
Edited by Trixie, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by herebedragons, posted 06-20-2012 8:38 AM Trixie has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 26 of 56 (665924)
06-19-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Trixie
06-19-2012 4:02 PM


Also that by definition, energy input into a system can only increase the entropy.
Actually, I have come across that one before. In one of the books by Dr. Henry Morris, one of the founders of the ICR, a co-creator of "creation science", "The Father of Flood Geology", and a PhD Hydraulic Engineering. He is also apparently the source of most of their thermodynanics claims, since his partner-in-crime, Duane Gish, is a PhD Biochemistry. In the forward his book, The Age of the Earth, Brent Dalrymple described his first introduction to creationism as being a lecture visit Gish and Morris made to the US Geological Survey circa 1975. Even then, they were making their thermodyamics claims and much of the conversations the scientists had with them centered around trying to explain to the creationists exactly how they were getting it wrong. And Gish and Morris did learn from that ... they learned to avoid talking with scientists.
I'll have to track it down, but Morris seemed to be drawing from the idea of equating heat with "waste energy", the energy that cannot be put to work within a system, with entropy. From that, he concluded that as we would add more heat to a system, as the sun does to the earth, then we would be increasing the entropy, not decreasing it. He even threw in some equations to support his claim. While I don't have formal training in thermodynamics, I'm sure that he's oversimplifying and making false equivalencies. Just because waste energy shows up as heat does not mean that all heat is waste energy. It is obvious that the incoming heat from the sun does do a lot of work, not the least of which is to drive our planet's weather systems, which in turn can produce a lot of mechanical energy. And with his training and work experience (teaching engineering and applied science in the university), Morris should have known better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 4:02 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 9:06 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 27 of 56 (665927)
06-19-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by dwise1
06-19-2012 8:38 PM


And the crucial point is that the light is harvested by plants and converted into chemical energy stores. Then the food chain happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2012 8:38 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 28 of 56 (665933)
06-19-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
06-19-2012 1:51 PM


"solar energy"
I actually built a solar furnace for my inorganic chemistry final project using a 27 cm x 27 cm Fresnel lens (the kind used in overhead projectors). I focused the sunlight to about a 2 cm circle and put a thermocoupler connected to a Microlab system directly into the beam. The temperature went to 915 deg C (1680 deg F) in about 1 minute! By heating a steel ball bearing with the beam, I was able to calculate that the furnace produced about 20 Watts of power (~270 watts / sq meter). And this was end of April / early May, so the sun wasn't even at its peak then.
But it didn't even occur to me to try it at night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 06-19-2012 1:51 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by saab93f, posted 06-20-2012 5:43 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 29 of 56 (665947)
06-20-2012 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by herebedragons
06-19-2012 10:31 PM


Re: "solar energy"
quote:
I actually built a solar furnace for my inorganic chemistry final project using a 27 cm x 27 cm Fresnel lens (the kind used in overhead projectors). I focused the sunlight to about a 2 cm circle and put a thermocoupler connected to a Microlab system directly into the beam. The temperature went to 915 deg C (1680 deg F) in about 1 minute! By heating a steel ball bearing with the beam, I was able to calculate that the furnace produced about 20 Watts of power (~270 watts / sq meter). And this was end of April / early May, so the sun wasn't even at its peak then.
But it didn't even occur to me to try it at night.
Is it not a shame that our cretin friends are blatantly denied funding? I mean - if they were given a spaceship they could increase the body of knowledge on sun by flying close during the night
Even though I live in the country where cretins are a small minority, it is equally frustrating to encounter the same blatant lies week after week. It is as if they (the creationists) were coated with teflon - no amount of reasoning sticks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by herebedragons, posted 06-19-2012 10:31 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 30 of 56 (665953)
06-20-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Trixie
06-19-2012 6:59 PM


Re: The stupid, it burns!
Trixie, the persons you cited in this post seem as if they are truly ignorant. They have little or no scientific knowledge and get their information from piecing together stuff posted on creationist websites. In many ways, they are to be forgiven and patiently corrected. For the most part, I don't believe they are actually interested in the science behind what they are discussing but instead they are victims of this false dichotomy that the radical fundies (redundant adjective?) are pushing. "If evolution is true then the entire Bible is false" or "Since the Bible is true, then evolution is false and the Earth was created in 6 literal days" is the mentality that drives most people to defend creationism - not the science behind it.
While many on this forum would ridicule that type of thinking, I understand it and don't necessarily think it is something to be criticized. What is to be criticized is those behind this false information; people such as this admin you mentioned. They are arrogant, self-righteous, condescending as well as ignorant - traits that are the exact opposite of what a Christian should be. I am not clear what truly motivates this group; it is not the love of science, neither is it the quest for truth, and I would think that defending the Christian faith would require a different approach (ie. not telling lies, not being arrogant and self-righteous).
As a fellow Christian who accepts evolution, I believe what we need to fight against is this false dichotomy that is pushed by the fundies. The trouble is that we are passionate about the science, while most of those in the creo camp are not; science is merely the medium. Thus much of the frustration ... some arguments are so fundamentally flawed it would take semesters of lecture to explain the reasons why the argument is flawed. And then they need the ability to understand and process that information (science is not everyone's forte).
So, I believe the real problem with the average creationist is not ignorance, but the belief in an either/or situation. This results in an infuriating attempt to defend the "either" because the "or" is so wrong. As long as people fear that acceptance of "the other side" eliminates or challenges their belief, they will remain ignorant. Remove that fear, and it allows them to open their minds to the truth. Try approaching things in that way (at least mentally, the science is still the evidence) and see if it is less frustrating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Trixie, posted 06-19-2012 6:59 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024