Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
356 online now:
jar, Tanypteryx (2 members, 354 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,297 Year: 5,943/14,102 Month: 91/438 Week: 23/112 Day: 23/14 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 106 of 128 (519711)
08-16-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Creation Guy
08-15-2009 8:48 PM


Creation Guy writes:

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.

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.

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.

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.


Off topic material hidden

Reading some of the posts on here by creationists and other want-to-be scientists has enlightened me the how much our education system is failing us. This is truely appalling and sad.

I guess I should start a new thread on this aka "Is our eduction system to blame for the pseudoscience spouted by creationists and IDers?". What do you think Percy and other moderators? Is this acceptable for a new thread?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Creation Guy, posted 08-15-2009 8:48 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 3:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 110 of 128 (519732)
08-16-2009 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
Creation Guy writes:

No where has it ever been seen to compact - in fact we have hard physics that state otherwise.

Do you just make this up as you go?

How do you think divers get the bends? Nitrogen bubbles form in the divers blood as the nitrogen gas which was previously compressed and disolved in the blood expands. This expansion of gas caused by decompression can produce fatal results if it happens quickly enough. This is just one amongst thousands of examples of how gravity and atmospheric/water pressure can cause gas to compress or vice versa.

Creation Guy writes:

This plays directly into thermodynamics - as a principal of increasing entropy until the system is at equilibrium.

What system are you talking about with respect to entropy? What is its boundaries? Are you talking about the entire universe or a subset i.e. just one star, etc?

CG writes:

Which it is not at now.

What is at equlibrium? Be specific. Otherwise this is giberish.

CG writes:

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?

Resorting to God of the gaps now. What a cop out. Besides this is a strawman argument you conjured up out of thin air. Stellar evolution is a verifiable scientific phenomena. All we have to do is take a look at our own Sun and see how the fusion of hydrogen into helium and other heavier elements occurs to understand the basics behind stellar evolution.

CG writes:

Please try to be somewhat less mean.

My motive is not to be mean or vindictive. It is to give you a wakeup call into reality. However, if being nice helps you understand better I have no problem with this.

CG writes:

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.

I do not have a triple doctorate and actually do not even have a Bachelor degree (though I do have an Associate Degree in Computer Science). What I do have is healthy dose of the purpose of science and how the scientific method works.

Not to be mean, but there is a recurring problem on this board with people who have barely enough education in the subject matter to try to use scientific concepts to back up their worldview but not enough to really understand the concepts they are trying to talk about. Do some reading before sticking the proverbial foot in the mouth again.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 3:05 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 6:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 114 of 128 (519741)
08-16-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Stars do not form
Creation Guy writes:

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.

Because the amount of energy caused by an increase in pressure and temperature is not enough is not enough to produce spontaneous fusion. It is not until the Coulomb Barrier is overcome that nuclei will begin to fuse together spontaneously to form larger nuclei.

It is only when enormous nebulaus clouds of gas, dust, and other material are large enough to create the Jean's instability phenomena that Cave Diver pointed out earlier that gravitation overcomes the internal pressure of the gas itself and causes it collapse. At this point stellar evolution is inevitable as the gas eventually collapses to the point in which the Coulumb Barrier is overcome and spontaneous fusion occurs.

Creation Guy writes:

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.

Primarily because stars do not "wink into existence". Rather they slowly evolve over hundreds of millions of years as vast clouds of gas slowly collapse to form a protostar and eventually T Tauri star then mature stars.

Star formation pics:


Click to enlarge

Image of star 'birth' at the centre of the tiny Papillon Nebula observed using Hubble:

CG writes:

Particles of matter do not clutter together in open space, nor do gasses.

False. Then why do we see nebulae and other gaseous regions in interstellar space?

They keep their distance based on the gravity that they are acted on by.

It is gravitational forces that is bringing them together not keeping them apart. Other forces such as brownian motion and the internal pressure of the gas itself can resist this gravitational force but if the gravitational force is greater than these other forces than there the collapse of these gasous particles is inevitable.

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.

But they are being acted on by gravity. Everything has a gravitational pull on everything else in the universe it is just in different degrees of gravitational attraction and gravitational forces from some matter can overcome or nullify the gravitional attraction by other matter depending on the amount of mass and distances involved.

CG writes:

By stellar evolutions account why is the Earth not a star?

Because the solid surface of the Earth itself impedes gas from being condensed to a small enough area at the center of the Earth to create pressures and temperature high enough to overcome the Coulomb Barrier, spontaneous fusion does not occur. Besides this would not be near enough gas to create enough gravitational force to overcome the internal pressure of the gas at the center and cause atomic nuceli to fuse together. Typical stellar birth nebulae can be hundreds to thousands of light years across.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 2:28 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 116 of 128 (519743)
08-16-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Creation Guy
08-16-2009 6:09 PM


Re: Attack the messenger
CG writes:

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.

Baseless assertion. Gas does compact on it's own as you have already given an example of the gas in the atmosphere being compressed through atmospheric pressure and I gave an example of gas being compressed in the blood stream through atmospheric pressure on a column of water which itself is compressed through gravitation.

CG writes:

Second the fact that stars age and die does not prove anything other that entropy.

Actually star creation is the result in the decrease in entropy in a certain region of space.

CG writes:

Stars are not being born. Show me one.

I already showed you.

CG writes:

I am not suggesting stars do not age and go from one phase to the next - they just simply cannot form.

Baseless assertion. Please provide evidence why.

CG writes:

They must be created by some amount of intelligence.

Baseless assertion. Please provide evidence.

CG writes:

Again sustainable fusion reactions are not easy.

It is not only easy but inevitable once the Coulumb Barrier is passed.

CG writes:

The entire universe is not at equilibrium.

Agreed.

CG writes:

Not until everything is burned out and scattered to fill the container evenly - will it be.

With accelerating cosmic expansion this will never occur.

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.

You don't have to, but don't expect us to believe you with you providing evidence to support your claims.

There were 3 universe theories - Big bang and everything is expanding outward - filling more and more volume.

That is not really what the Big Bang theory asserts. The volume of spacetime itself is actually expanding or more accurately stretching. There is no 'outward' as 'outward' would implie there is something the universe is expanding 'into'. It is actually a misnomer people uneducated in astrophysics purport that the Big Bang is an explosion that through matter outward into empty space.

CG writes:

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.

Yes heat loss is entropy but entropy can be reversed in an open system.

CG writes:

Photosynthesis notwithstanding.

Photosynthesis is just one of many examples of decreasing entropy in an open system. Other phenomena include the evolution and growth of life, the formation of crystals, net increase of energy from the Sun which drives climate and other natural phenomena on the planets and moons of the solar system, etc.
Off topic material hidden


CG writes:

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

Well, it depends on what you mean by a "evolutionary". Do you mean biological evolution or all types of evolution i.e. cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, etc.

Steady state theorists such as Frank Hoyle and others had no problems with stellar evolution. They just disagreed with exactly how the universe originated.

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.

Bullshit. I would venture that most scientists are religious in one degree or another. The problem is when you bring the pseudoscience of creationism and intelligent design into credible scientific endeavors.

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.

Mention it all you want. Just don't call it science. It is philosophy and religion not science.

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.

That is why we see millions of atheists who are miserable and committing suicide every day.

Most atheists I know (including myself) have families and enjoy very fulfilling lives.

I will quote a big time evolutionary to tell you what you already know:

That's nice but this is an argument from authority fallacy if you think this gives your position more credence.

The say in law enforcement that confession is the strongest form of evidence - more reliable that eye witness or actual hard evidence

So are you confessing you are wrong? Sorry you just walked into that one

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


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