May his noodly appendage grace you always...

[idioth]

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create, when all it is known to do is degrade?

Thank you, I am already familiar with logical fallacies.

And, if you claim that people are so gullible, you imply that that you have all the answers. Please, enlighten our superstitious miinds with your superior intelect. Make a logical defense for evolution. It's been a while since I've heard one.

the theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain the creation of the universe.

so.. how is it that recognizing gullibility implies having all the answers?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create, when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
It all makes sense now. I've seen the light. Why wasn't I show the way eairlier. I've always know from birth that I was destined to worship a large pasta monster. I remember my pasta sauce batism. Finally i belive.

Ah, but was it red sauce or white sauce? We don't want any of those neopastafarians who believe in red sauce baptism here. (-;

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Twits, I see you got your answer already... from a physicit, no less!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create, when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

See, this is the issue with arguing science with non-science people. They understand the fundamentals so poorly that discussing anything within the realm of science is impossible. They don't even understand the language of the debate, so how can there be a reasonable discussion at all?

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, I think this fake religion is the greatest addition to the ID vs evolution debate ever. After all, if we're giving one non-scientific theory equal time, don't we have to give equal time to all theories that meet the level of scientific proof as well?

 

[TWills]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create, when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

Can you be more specific here?
Pics?


http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1770

One sure way to let something ruin is simply to do nothing to take care of it. Everyone knows that a brand new car left untouched in a driveway for twenty years will not look better at the end of that period of time. No one would claim that a toy truck left in the sand box by a three-year-old is going to look newer after six months of weathering. If your room is dirty, do you think that it will clean itself if you leave it alone for three months? Of course you don?t! Neglecting your room will only give it more time to collect dust.

Every time we see things wearing down over time, we are witnessing a scientific law. What is a scientific law? A scientific law is a principle in nature that is true in every observable case. Whether the measurements come from the sunny islands of Hawaii or the ice-covered tundra of the Arctic, a scientific law is the same for all places. But one thing we must remember about scientific laws is that scientists do not make the laws, they only observe them and label them.

Also, we need to understand the difference between a scientific law and a theory. While a law is something that is observable in every known case, a theory is something that someone thinks might be true and that is supported by at least some scientific evidence. Over the years, many false theories have had to be thrown out because they did not agree with the scientific laws of nature. If a theory goes against a scientific law, then the theory is not correct and must be discarded.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

So, what scientific law do we observe when we see things wearing out over time? We are seeing the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. Even though this law may sound complicated, it really is not difficult to understand. Thermodynamics is just a long word used to discuss the way that matter and energy behave in nature. Stated simply, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that matter and energy are moving toward a less usable, more disorderly state called ?entropy.? The late Isaac Asimov, a famous evolutionist, wrote about the Second Law: ?Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: ?The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.? ? For instance, when a person puts gasoline into a vehicle, the energy in that gasoline is usable, but after the gasoline burns, much of the energy escapes into the atmosphere and cannot be used again.

EVOLUTION IS AGAINST THE LAW

The Second Law of Thermodynamics presents a serious problem for the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution cannot be true if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true. George Gaylord Simpson was one of the most famous evolutionists of his day. Listen to him describe the theory of evolution: ?Evolution is a fully natural process?by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively.? He explained that the theory of evolution is supposed to be a process by which things develop progressively. According to the theory, things started out very simple and, over a very long period of time, became increasingly more complex. For instance, a single-celled amoeba supposedly developed into a 100-trillion-celled human over billions of years.

But when the theory of evolution is placed beside the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the two do not agree. Things in this Universe do not get progressively better over time; they get progressively worse (entropy). Every year, we humans burn resources that can never be replaced. Cars wear out, bodies get old and wrinkly, and buildings deteriorate. If a huge pile of old scrap wood lays in a grassy yard, will it be turned into a nice house if left alone for hundreds of years? Of course not! In fact, anyone who has done his or her homework on the Second Law knows that if things continue as they are, at some point in the future (although it may be many millions of years away) there will be no more usable energy.

This Universe is digressive, not progressive, and that goes directly against the theory of evolution. Creation, on the other hand, falls in line perfectly with the Second Law. In the beginning, God created everything to be very good, but since that time things have deteriorated.

Search on the site for "Thermodynamics"

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sad thing is there's a good chance in 2000 years people will be killing each other over whether He was a Capellini or a Linguine.

Macaroni! INFIDEL!!!! :|

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: TWills
His Holiness

The encyclopedia reveals his magnificent truth, and why he was created!

Mud slinging: the best the left can muster in an argument...

Sorry, I had to laugh at that mud slinging comment. If you think mud slinging is confined to "the left" then you are clearly a misinformed individual.

the idea of this being mudslinging is ignorant anyway.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TWills

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create, when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

Can you be more specific here?
Pics?


http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1770

One sure way to let something ruin is simply to do nothing to take care of it. Everyone knows that a brand new car left untouched in a driveway for twenty years will not look better at the end of that period of time. No one would claim that a toy truck left in the sand box by a three-year-old is going to look newer after six months of weathering. If your room is dirty, do you think that it will clean itself if you leave it alone for three months? Of course you don?t! Neglecting your room will only give it more time to collect dust.

Every time we see things wearing down over time, we are witnessing a scientific law. What is a scientific law? A scientific law is a principle in nature that is true in every observable case. Whether the measurements come from the sunny islands of Hawaii or the ice-covered tundra of the Arctic, a scientific law is the same for all places. But one thing we must remember about scientific laws is that scientists do not make the laws, they only observe them and label them.

Also, we need to understand the difference between a scientific law and a theory. While a law is something that is observable in every known case, a theory is something that someone thinks might be true and that is supported by at least some scientific evidence. Over the years, many false theories have had to be thrown out because they did not agree with the scientific laws of nature. If a theory goes against a scientific law, then the theory is not correct and must be discarded.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

So, what scientific law do we observe when we see things wearing out over time? We are seeing the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. Even though this law may sound complicated, it really is not difficult to understand. Thermodynamics is just a long word used to discuss the way that matter and energy behave in nature. Stated simply, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that matter and energy are moving toward a less usable, more disorderly state called ?entropy.? The late Isaac Asimov, a famous evolutionist, wrote about the Second Law: ?Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: ?The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.? ? For instance, when a person puts gasoline into a vehicle, the energy in that gasoline is usable, but after the gasoline burns, much of the energy escapes into the atmosphere and cannot be used again.

EVOLUTION IS AGAINST THE LAW

The Second Law of Thermodynamics presents a serious problem for the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution cannot be true if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true. George Gaylord Simpson was one of the most famous evolutionists of his day. Listen to him describe the theory of evolution: ?Evolution is a fully natural process?by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively.? He explained that the theory of evolution is supposed to be a process by which things develop progressively. According to the theory, things started out very simple and, over a very long period of time, became increasingly more complex. For instance, a single-celled amoeba supposedly developed into a 100-trillion-celled human over billions of years.

But when the theory of evolution is placed beside the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the two do not agree. Things in this Universe do not get progressively better over time; they get progressively worse (entropy). Every year, we humans burn resources that can never be replaced. Cars wear out, bodies get old and wrinkly, and buildings deteriorate. If a huge pile of old scrap wood lays in a grassy yard, will it be turned into a nice house if left alone for hundreds of years? Of course not! In fact, anyone who has done his or her homework on the Second Law knows that if things continue as they are, at some point in the future (although it may be many millions of years away) there will be no more usable energy.

This Universe is digressive, not progressive, and that goes directly against the theory of evolution. Creation, on the other hand, falls in line perfectly with the Second Law. In the beginning, God created everything to be very good, but since that time things have deteriorated.

Search on the site for "Thermodynamics"

Like I said...you guys don't understand the fundamentals involved, so you can't debate the issue intelligently. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just pointing out the real problem with this debate.

As to the point about evolution violating the second law of thermodynamics, it's based on a misunderstanding of the second law, one that was directly addressed by cquark. The second law does not say every single thing in a system must "get worse" over time, it says the entropy in the system cannot decrease. Those examples given by that silly website would also fit with a tiny acorn turning into a huge tree. Does that violate the second law? Of course not, because the tree grew by taking energy from other sources. Things can't be created out of nothing, but evolution isn't arguing that, is it?

Here is the most basic example I can think of, one that I'm sure leaves out a lot of the finer points of the law. Think of our system as a large number of beakers, all filled with various amounts of water. Now without changing the total amount of water in the system, some beakers can be filled all the way to the top, right? Even if the total amount of water goes down over time (as it would in real life due to evaporation), water can still be moved around in such a way that empty beakers can become full. In this example, the second law limits the amount of water in the entire system, it doesn't say anything about water in an individual beaker.

Edit: Fixed a typo

 

[azazyel]

Rainsford Thanks for that post! It hurts my head too much reading stuff from that site.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: TWills

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create, when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

Can you be more specific here?
Pics?

Sure. Here are two pictures (one with more detail than the other from a better scope) of the Big Bang in the microwave spectrum:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/...iverse/images/cobe_wmap_jpg_image.html

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: TWills
Also, we need to understand the difference between a scientific law and a theory. While a law is something that is observable in every known case, a theory is something that someone thinks might be true and that is supported by at least some scientific evidence. Over the years, many false theories have had to be thrown out because they did not agree with the scientific laws of nature. If a theory goes against a scientific law, then the theory is not correct and must be discarded.

This paragraph is completely wrong. Law is an archaic term for theory, not an improved version of a theory. The last statement is particularly absurd, as Einstein's Theory of General Relativity replaced Newton's Law of Gravitation. We use General Relativity in technologies like the Global Positioning System, where Newton's Law doesn't work.

The late Isaac Asimov, a famous evolutionist, wrote about the Second Law: ?Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: ?The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.? ?

Note that he said that the universe is getting more disorderly, not every individual item within it. Water in the clouds is a vapor of atoms randomly moving around, but it can spontaneously precipitate into complex, ordered crystals that we call snowflakes. If every individual thing in the universe had to become more disordered over time, it couldn't snow and you couldn't make ice in your freezer.

As long as you have a source of energy, you can increase order in a system, such as your refrigerator using electricity to make ice. If we follow the food chain down from animals to plants, we find that plants get energy from the Sun . The Sun delivers a huge amount of energy to the Earth every day, feeding the plants and keeping the planet warm enough to support life.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of science, but do not apply them to evolution!

The first rule of any debate is to not make yourself look like a complete and totally ignorant moron, which you have failed quite admirably. You do not understand the laws of thermodynamics in the least so I would recommend not trying to argue their validity in application to other scientific theories for which I would wager you have no understanding of. May I suggest you take some basic courses in the subjects so that you don't make yourself look like such a moron when trying to discuss them.

 

[TWills]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of
science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at
this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth
scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create,
when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does
not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality
telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories
that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff
as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

See, this is the issue with arguing science with non-science people. They understand the fundamentals
so poorly that discussing anything within the realm of science is impossible. They don't even understand
the language of the debate, so how can there be a reasonable discussion at all?

The fact that no one is ableto sit down and spell out/have a conversation with otherminded individuals shows how much they know themselves.
The "you're stupid because you don't believe what I believe" mentality should be reserved for the playground.
If you have all the answers, hand them over. I'm willing to change my stance if you can refute my beliefs,
because I want to believe what's true. Ever since its conception, evolution has changed its directions,
touted multiple proofs, and produced radical theorems. Have you ever watched Nature and Evolution documentaries?
There is a different story of origins etc. in each one. The only thing the various shows agree on is that
the dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago. I've seen stories of how the earth formed by gigantic rocks bashing
together, eventually forming the earth. I've seen stories that claim the formation of the universe by
nothingness randomly exploding into existence.(a take on creation, i might add) I've seen tons of theories
based on how life even started on earth. Amino acids coming together. Fungus mutating.

What about the timeline to evolution? Trilobytes anyone? They are said to be one of the most base and
primitive of all life, dating among the first lifeforms to exist on the planet. These things are supposed
to be fossilized in rock xxx millions of years ago, with other base lifeforms. However, I have seen rocks
that have both a trilobyte and a human foot print on it that have been fossilized together!! Damning evidence
for the age of the trilobyte.
What of the caelocanth(spelling?)? Said to be extinct millions of years ago? They were supposedly
one of the first fish to ever evolve onto land. Caelocanths are still being caught in the ocean today!
Their organs tend to be more complex than modern fish of similar size! Life did not "evolve to a higher being"
here.


Evolution has no basis. It's hypotheses and facts change upon the turn of a dime. I have a whole
list of things sitting right in front of me now disproving evolution. Shall I go on? Provide some evidence for evolution!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: TWills
Have you ever watched Nature and Evolution documentaries?

TV shows aren't science. You can't judge the quality of any science by the quality of TV shows made about it. Science is reported in peer-reviewed journals. If you've got an objection to a scientific result presented in a peer-reviewed journal, please present it.

What about the timeline to evolution? Trilobytes anyone? They are said to be one of the most base and primitive of all life, dating among the first lifeforms to exist on the planet. These things are supposed
to be fossilized in rock xxx millions of years ago, with other base lifeforms. However, I have seen rocks
that have both a trilobyte and a human foot print on it that have been fossilized together!!

Can you support this assertion?

They were supposedly one of the first fish to ever evolve onto land. Caelocanths are still being caught in the ocean today!
Their organs tend to be more complex than modern fish of similar size! Life did not "evolve to a higher being" here.

This is not a problem, because evolution has no concept of a "higher beings" in it. Humanity, the cockroach, and bacteria are all "equally evolved."

Evolution has no basis. It's hypotheses and facts change upon the turn of a dime. I have a whole list of things sitting right in front of me now disproving evolution. Shall I go on? Provide some evidence for evolution!

So far, it's been your arguments that have been shown to have no basis and that change on the turn of a time. As for evidence, there are thousands of lines of evidence displayed in natural history museums, published in scientific journals, and stored on genetic databases, much of which is readily available to anyone with a web browser, library card, or museum admission ticket. Let me know what aspect of evolution that you're interested in from common descent to speciation and I'll point you to the evidence for it.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: TWills
The fact that no one is ableto sit down and spell out/have a conversation with otherminded individuals shows how much they know themselves.
The "you're stupid because you don't believe what I believe" mentality should be reserved for the playground.
If you have all the answers, hand them over. I'm willing to change my stance if you can refute my beliefs,

Your religion has nothing to do with science nor will it ever. We will not argue science with you when you are clearly lacking in even a fundemental understanding of the basics. I wouldn't argue beer brewing with someone that has never even drank a beer let alone brewed one just as I'm not going to argue thermodynamics or evolution with someone that doesn't even understand the very basic premise of the theories or science in general.

You have displayed a complete ignorance of the science involved. When you go and take a half a dozen college level science courses that cover thermo and biology then we can debate it because then you will hopefully have the understanding of the basics to actually talk on the same level as us. Let me use another analogy, you are attempting to discuss calculus when the highest math you have taken is long division, you cannot possibly grasp even the most fundemental principles of the theories involved.

 

[cKGunslinger]

I don't know if I'm excited or depressed at the fact that this is the best thread in P&N right now...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I don't know if I'm excited or depressed at the fact that this is the best thread in P&N right now...

rofl

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: TWills
However, I have seen rocks that have both a trilobyte and a human foot print on it that have been fossilized together!!

/opiateofthemasses

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sad thing is there's a good chance in 2000 years people will be killing each other over whether He was a Capellini or a Linguine.

For some reason I can't stop laughing at this comment.

Originally posted by: TWills

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: TWills
Do you dispute the laws of thermodynamics, then? Evolutionists espouse being staunch believers in the laws of
science, but do not apply them to evolution! For instance, evolutionists claim the universe is expanding at
this very moment, spawning stuff as it goes (not that they've seen it themselves). However, here on earth
scientific observation shows that matter naturally degrades, and not vice versa. So how can matter create,
when all it is known to do is degrade?

The second law of thermodynamics does not state that matter naturally degrades. It states that entropy does
not decrease in a closed system.

The Big Bang is not the same thing as evolution; it is directly observable by anyone with a high quality
telescope; and the Big Bang does not include continuous creation and in fact replaces earlier theories
that claimed that matter was continuously created (which is what I presume you mean by "spawning stuff
as it goes.)

cquark, physicist at large

See, this is the issue with arguing science with non-science people. They understand the fundamentals
so poorly that discussing anything within the realm of science is impossible. They don't even understand
the language of the debate, so how can there be a reasonable discussion at all?

The fact that no one is ableto sit down and spell out/have a conversation with otherminded individuals shows how much they know themselves.
The "you're stupid because you don't believe what I believe" mentality should be reserved for the playground.
If you have all the answers, hand them over. I'm willing to change my stance if you can refute my beliefs,
because I want to believe what's true. Ever since its conception, evolution has changed its directions,
touted multiple proofs, and produced radical theorems. Have you ever watched Nature and Evolution documentaries?
There is a different story of origins etc. in each one. The only thing the various shows agree on is that
the dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago. I've seen stories of how the earth formed by gigantic rocks bashing
together, eventually forming the earth. I've seen stories that claim the formation of the universe by
nothingness randomly exploding into existence.(a take on creation, i might add) I've seen tons of theories
based on how life even started on earth. Amino acids coming together. Fungus mutating.

It's not really a problem with "you're stupid because you don't believe what I believe." It's more a problem of these people have spent years studying and researching the subject of evolution while you have heard sound bytes and little tidbits of info about it. Obviously you are going to have less of an understanding about it. Does it really make sense to argue with a physicist over the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Don't you think that they might know slightly more than you on the subject?

I suggest you spend some time at TalkOrigins.org and maybe come back to the conversation. Most of the articles are pretty dry but if you make it through them you'll be a lot more knowledgable on the subject.

Also, the beginning of life (or the universe) has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution gives an explanation of the fact that species have changed over time.