|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2004 : 14:03:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arcanix_X
quote:
my main argument was that the reasoning you used was incorrect, and I did not base that argument on whether matter could be destroyed, but upon the fact that your argument was based upon assumptions which are not considered facts, like relativity being in effect prior to the Big Bang
i'm affraid we are at a stale mate here since you are basing your attack on my assumption with another assumption - that relativity was not in effect before the big bang, therefore nullifying your argument
We can not assume that the Universe is a closed system.
The rest of your post warrants a longer reply, which I don't have the time for right now. I'll try to get back to you on this. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 17:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I prefer the term Jack Chick...biggest problem I've seen is that all the people learning this stuff know nothing but Jack Chick about the subject.
When I was in a secular High School 30 years ago, those wacko Jack Chick comics would nevertheless find their way to us. We'd alter them, changing the captions and altering the drawings. We had the tall blonde angels throwing kids into the eternal fire, The Lord on his thrown looked a lot like Groucho Marx, and we added various oddball cartoon characters, showing up and ruining the (already weird) story lines.  |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
dominic_dice
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
53 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2004 : 02:04:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by dominic_dice
But evolution doesn't get somthing from nothing. The chemicals required were already there. You obviously don't understand what they said.
Were you responding to me? I'm not sure as your answer's a bit vague. In any case, it made me think that prior posters might think I was responding - above - to them rather than to the original poster. So I'm editing mine. . . .
Sorry! I did it again... i read the first page or two and get so caught up in the discussion that I reply before I realise that here are more pages. I was refering to C88 when he said that you couldn't get somthing from nothing there fore evo was impossible.. |
"Are you THE dominic_dice"
"No, a dominic_dice. I come in six packs now" |
|
|
|
Pandora
New Member
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2004 : 14:51:19 [Permalink]
|
| What about before the big bang? There was nothing, not even time. |
"If there were a god, then science would be meaningless" -- me. |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2004 : 20:03:56 [Permalink]
|
Laws of Thermodynamics apply to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system, plenty of energy being pumped into it by the sun. It is that simple.
According to 88's logic, freezers wouldn't work. Nothing would ever be born or grow. That house you live in, couldn't be built.
Two types of people in the world: those who understand thermodynamics and those who don't. |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2004 : 20:06:10 [Permalink]
|
| By the way, I used the term "88's logic" very loosely. |
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
|
dominic_dice
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
53 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2004 : 13:16:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
What about before the big bang? There was nothing, not even time.
you don't know there was no time. We are not really sure what happend before the big bang. I like to beleive the big crunch theory, and that the big bang we talk about is nto the first. But this is off topic... |
|
|
|
LOGOS
New Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2004 : 12:41:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
I'm sure most of you are familier with the law of Entropy. I f you aren't, it basicly says that everything goes from order to dis-order, complexity to decay from hot to cold.
Evolution completly goes against this law of thermodynamics. I mean think about it. In evolution, atoms allegedly self produce amino acids, amino acids auto organize amoebas, amoebas urn into apes, and apes turn into astronauts.
Mathmatician and physicist, Sir Arthur Eddington demonstrated that exactly the opposite is true: The energy of the universe irraversably flows from hot to cold bodies. The sun burns up billions of tons of hydrogen each second, stars burn out, and species eventually become extinct. More and more each day I start to think, that evolution should be called science FICTION, not just science.
You are suffering from anthropomorphic bias. The official name for the theory that explains the specific perceptual fallacy you have just committed is knows as the Anthropic Principle. (Hint: do a google on 'anthropic principle' and READ).
Evolution creates MORE "disorder" than "order". It is this "disorder" as well as the "order" that makes Natural Selection function. It is the tigers that die as well as the tigers that live that determine the concept we call 'existing living tigers'. What you would call "disorder", I would call biologically unsuccessful individuals. You don't see disorder because you don't see the DEAD, (LOL). This lack of success may be because other members of this individual's species were not as well adapted, or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. What you would call, "order", I would call "progeny". That which is progeny, is alive and is currently "successful". You don't see the mechanism that provides the meaning to the progeny, which is the opposite of progeny, the DEAD.
|
LOGOS |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2004 : 20:00:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
Stop reading Answers in Genesis and listening to Dr Dino,
Read more at Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution: Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
This argument has been done to death, get with it C88 and stop sprouting the same old crap.
What new crap do you have there Mr. Universe, since you are going to tell me what happened in the middle of the universe even though nobody has been there!!!! Including you. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2004 : 04:23:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Are you hinting at the misunderstood assumption that "If you can't observe it, you can't show it to be true"? May I ask you then, how do they solve murder cases where there are no eye witnesses?
I find it an argument that reflects poorly on the person making the argument. Especially, if that person has beliefs involving a supernatural creator. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2004 : 07:06:32 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
What new crap do you have there Mr. Universe...
Actually, it's very old crap. Henry Morris started claiming that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics almost 20 years ago, and it was shown to be based upon misconceptions about that law almost 20 years ago, as well. Thus, anybody who claims today that evolution violates the 2nd law is doing nothing more than spreading lies which are known to be lies. That would be "bearing false witness," would it not?quote:
...since you are going to tell me what happened in the middle of the universe even though nobody has been there!!!! Including you.
What does "the middle of the universe" have to do with either evolution or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
