|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2001 : 16:50:24 [Permalink]
|
LOL, he's all too aware that he has no theory, no evidence....nothing. So he has to resort to fighting evolution with nonsense thinking it strengthens his belief. I suggest a freshman high school science course, the same one he obviously never made it through in the first place. I can just imagine how a real science instructor would take this!
Here's a fun link to explore over at BBCi. The BBC by the way got a killer new makeover.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 19:29:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's a fun link to explore over at BBCi. The BBC by the way got a killer new makeover.
@tomic
You're right, that is one fantastic piece from the 'Beeb'. Can't wait until it's shown over here.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2001 : 20:58:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...Neo-Darwinism...
Neo-Darwinism? Since when has Darwinism started over?
"Hey Butt-Head check this book out! There's a talking snake, a naked chick, then some guy puts a leaf on his SCHLONG!!" [Beavis and Butt-Head Do America] |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 04:13:28 [Permalink]
|
 To slater:Here is a definition of the nonexistent[according to you] "law of mass action:"are reversible chemical reactions.
The Law of Mass Action
The law of mass action is universal, applicable under any circumstance. However, for reactions that are complete, the result may not be very useful. We introduce the mass action law by using a general chemical reaction equation in which reactants A and B react to give product C and D.
a A + b B --> c C + d D . Next do your homework before you drink your kool aid
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 04:26:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The mass action law states that if the system is at equilibrium at a given temperature, then the following ratio is a constant.
[C]c [D]d
------------- = Keq
[A]a [B]b
The square brackets "[ ]" around the chemical species represent their concentrations. This is the ideal law of chemical equilibrium or law of mass action.
The units for K depend upon the units used for concentrations. If M is used for all concentrations, K has units
Mc+d-(a+b)
The Reaction Quotients Q and the Equilibrium Constants K
If the system is NOT at equilibrium, the ratio is different from the equilibrium constant. In such cases, the ratio is called a reaction quotient which is designated as Q.
[C]c [D]d
------------- = Q
[A]a [B]b
A system not at equilibrium tend to become equilibrium, and the changes will cause changes in Q that its value approaches the equilibrium constant, K
Q ® Keq.
It seems this is merely a restatement of the Laws of Thermodynamics, emphasis on the 2nd Law, but applied specifically to chemical reactions.
I haven't read about it in depth, but one wonders why such a restatement is needed. Nonetheless, it apparently exists. I insist, though, that you learn more about it and the fact that it applies only to a closed system and therefore is not a valid argument against origin of life in the oceans.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 04:33:21 [Permalink]
|
Garrette, I just went back over this entire thread (someone owes me a medal), and DA has not provided a single link to back up his assertions. Although his caps lock key works just fine.
Parroting ICR pamphlets probably isn't the best way to conduct intelligent debate on a skeptics forum.
Just MHO. [/sarcasm]
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 04:40:10 [Permalink]
|
Understood, Lisa. Actually, I'm in this for the practice and to learn. Not being totally up on the science of it all, I don't often find a debate on this topic I can handle. Which isn't to say I'm really 'handling' this one; just trying.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 09:25:27 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Garrette, this
[C]c [D]d
------------- = Keq
[A]a [B]b
and
[C]c [D]d
------------- = Q
[A]a [B]b
I can understand. It's simple Thermodynamics, but applied to chemical reactions, as you said.
But a A + b B --> c C + d D left me scratching my head. DA would you care to tell us what these letters stand for? And what principle is being demonstrated?
Do you show things like this to other creationists and do they ever ask what they mean. 'Cause you are leaving the impression that you are throwing science sounding words into the brew without knowing what they actually mean.
You cannot use the authority of science and try to bring down science at the same time.
These formulas all deal with equilibrium and in EVERY ONE OF MY STATEMENTS I TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF ENERGY.
Get it-the addition of something means it isn't a closed system. We aren't talking test tubes here. We are talking about the ocean.
Also the Law of Mass Action, that Garrette found, bears no relation to the claims that you said A.E. made. Want to explain what you actually meant?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 21:41:38 [Permalink]
|
To Dr. Slater,it seems your fairy tale about our saviour 'algae shit'just doesn't add up to real experimental science.I refer you to Dr. A.E.Wilder Smith's/THE NATURAL SCIENCES KNOW NOTHING OF EVOLUTION/p.14"Thus, if excess water is present in reacting mixture,peptide synthesis DOES NOT TAKE PLACE[emph.mine],equilibrium remains on the side of the initial reagents,the amino acids which are the building blocks of life .This phenomenon is covered by the law of mass action...The ocean is thus the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. quote:
These formulas all deal with equilibrium and in EVERY ONE OF MY STATEMENTS I TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF ENERGY.
Get it-the addition of something means it isn't a closed system. We aren't talking test tubes here. We are talking about the ocean.
Also the Law of Mass Action, that Garrette found, bears no relation to the claims that you said A.E. made. Want to explain what you actually meant?
-------Well Dr. Slater you must be trying to duck the real issue.I quoted a world renowed ,former evolutionist,chemist. Whether I am an expert is irrelevent.In my quote Dr. Smith points out a very simple chemical law(one which you claimed didn't exist).Namely,that when random chance is the controlling agent ANY supposed order is equaly reversible.This is similar to
random typing on your keyboard(you can do a controlled experiment ),while you are typing away by total chance the word "cat" may pop up but then the next two million lines will look like /dfkjvsdiufvfdhvldf/conveying no useful information whatsoever.But you reply"I'm not talking about the a test tube I'm talking about the ocean"thats why I put your last posting next to mine because so was Dr. Smith(Check it out). Now concerning my so called lack of respect for science you folks couldn't be further from the truth.I firmly have confidence that my senses don't deceive me and in the regularty of the universe.I believe in thr law of rational inference(like an archeologist who finds a piece of pottery or arrowhead and rightly concludes that its the work of an intelligent being).Also I accept the law of cause and effect ,and with it the truth that no effect is greater than its cause.Therefore,I reject any view that states that the"I"the person is the result of blind impersonal chance.You however,have a diffrent view.When for example,you repeat your blind FAITH in "somehow eons ago in a land faraway racemates became peptides,then amino acids ect...".There is no repeatable scientific verification for your view its just what you want to have happened,in other words its your philosophy.  
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 21:47:53 [Permalink]
|
 Sorry about the mutilple postings 
|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 21:59:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The ocean is thus the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids.
I ask you again; WHO THE HELL EVER SAID THAT IT MUST TAKE PLACE IN AN OCEAN? Life certainly flourished there once it had got a start, but that doesn't mean that it had to begin there.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP! |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 22:55:47 [Permalink]
|
Lets see my son's evolutionary text book,Dr. Slater,and about 500 PBS specials equipped with "eyewitness animation"
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2001 : 23:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
D'Alogos; the first life on Earth developed in the sea, The lethal radiation that you are so concerned about was partly filtered by sea water. Without the energy from this radiation life could not then, as now exist.
DAlogos, this is the statement by Slater to which you refer.
sea (s)
n.
The continuous body of salt water covering most of the earth's surface, especially this body regarded as a geophysical entity distinct from earth and sky.
Abbr. S.
1. A tract of water within an ocean.
2. A relatively large body of salt water completely or partially enclosed by land.
3. A relatively large landlocked body of fresh water.
The condition of the ocean's surface with regard to its course, flow, swell, or turbulence: a rising sea; choppy seas.
A wave or swell, especially a large one: a 40-foot sea that broke over the stern.
Something that suggests the ocean in its overwhelming sweep or vastness: a sea of controversy.
Seafaring as a way of life.
Astronomy. A lunar mare.
This definition found through www.dictionary.com pretty much cover most any large body of water. You assume that Slater means the ocean and only the ocean when any large or middle sized body of water will do. And, you apparently assume that that means in the middle of... Where if it happened at the shore where tides et al would affect the amount of water present at any given time in the *tidal pools*.... It also could be an inland sea whether fresh or salt water.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 06:50:36 [Permalink]
|
Darwin, glad to see you're still here and not giving up.
Bit of advice, though; don't goad Slater and the others. If they actually decide to devote any time to this, Slater, PhD, Valiant, and a few others will--quite respectfully, probably--dissect your arguments with great precision.
Regarding this topic, I'm probably among the least educated skeptics on this board, so you'll have better luck with me.
Toward that end, here's another quick shot (word of warning, though; I'm heading out of town for a while tonight, so my responses will be sparse or non-existent for a while).
quote:
I quoted a world renowed ,former evolutionist,chemist. Whether I am an expert is irrelevent.
First point: So if I find an opposing quotation from someone with better credentials, then I win? Argument from Authority, and not at all valid. Start with Asimov. Toss in Sagan. Maybe Einstein? How about Bohr? Heck, for the fun of it, and off the top of my head, I'll stack Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer, and even Steve Allen up against Wilder-Smith. Do you see how this gets us nowhere?
Second point: Be careful of the credentials that you trumpet. Here are Wilder-Smith's.
quote:
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith
Creationist
Chemist
Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry)
Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
NATO three-star general
Lecturer
Deceased
Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be - More info
Not bad. Obviously an intelligent fellow. But 70 scientific publications and 30 books? I think Steve Allen beats that himself. I know Asimov does.
Oh, yeah (and this one might tick you off a bit, but it's an honest question): Can you point me to ANY supporting reference for the 3 star NATO general claim? I'm a military guy and can find nothing to substantiate this. It could be true, but I haven't been able to verify it.
And let's take a look at that award winning video he's featured in (the first part wouldn't copy in so I had to type it:
quote:
"ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be" The most highly acclaimed and BEST creation series ever! Winner of the Best Film Series of the Year Award plus the Best Documentary Film of the Year Award--Christian Film Distributors Association
Don't allow the secular media and dogmatic evolutionist scientists to push you into believing as they do. Here is the scientific evidence about origins - for Creation and Impressive degrees and a lifetime of "questioning" and "searching" are of no value - unless you're looking in the right place! against Evolution. And it's all presented as beautifully as a National Geographic or PBS special. Your audience will love these six highly acclaimed productions, each of which strongly defends a different aspect of the Bible's record.
Around-the-world photography
Special effects
Animation
Impressive, award-winning quality
Featuring 15 outstanding men of science including the late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith - popular international speaker, prolific author, fascinating and highly respected scholar and educator with THREE earned doctorates from prestigious universities.
1. The Origin of the Universe
Did our universe result from a "Big Bang" or a Creator? The cosmos is degenerating into disorder - not evolving upward. / Demonstrates the impossibility of Evolution.
2. The Earth, A Young Planet?
Is Earth really billions of years old? / Exposes the errors and assumptions of popular age estimation methods / There is much scientific evidence that our Earth may be young!
3. The Origin of Life
Did life begin by Evolution? Even the simplest cell could never evolve by natural processes / Leaves audiences in awe of the Creator's power and wisdom!
4. The Origin of Species
Are all creatures just branches on an Evolutionary tree? Can any natural process, including mutations, cause Evolution? Partially filmed in Darwin's own home.
5. The Origin of Mankind
Are there any apes in man's ancestry? / Scientific evidence dispels this myth / Uncovers the mistakes, hoaxes, and misinformation about "missing links."
6. The Fossil Record
What do most fossils really prove? They support Creation and contradict Evolution. / Many geological formations, including the Grand Canyon, resulted from Noah's flood.
(Produced by Eden Communications / Films for Christ)
Endorsements
"A powerful film series... Don't miss it!"
--Josh McDowell, Author & Speaker
Also endorsed by: Dr. Tim LaHaye, Dr. Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Dr. John Whitcomb, Dr. John W. Alexander, plus thousands of pastors, teachers, parents and homeschoolers world-wide!
Did you notice that statement near the beginning? This one:
quote:
Impressive degrees and a lifetime of "questioning" and "searching" are of no value - unless you're looking in the right place!
Wow. Good advice actually, at least the first part about impressive degrees being worthless by themselves. After that, though, it gets a bit sticky. "Search" and "questioning" are worthless? I think that speaks volumes.
"Unless you're looking in the right place." Do you know what this says? It says draw your conclusions FIRST and then seek evidence to support it. It describes the majority of the Creation Scientist approach quite accurately.
Okay. Off of Wilder-Smith now and back to a tad bit of science.
quote:
In my quote Dr. Smith points out a very simple chemical law(one which you claimed didn't exist).Namely,that when random chance is the controlling agent ANY supposed order is equaly reversible.This is similar to
random typing on your keyboard(you can do a controlled experiment ),while you are typing away by total chance the word "ca |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
