Why creation science is an oxymoron

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

I think you just confirmed my pet theory that liberals live in a completely different reality.

You've certainly confirmed my theory that you didn't have a point to make and was just trolling.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Can't answer a simple question...

LMAO...

Quote from kut2k2:

Easy to see you flunked your thermo class. Of course you probably never took one and are just talking out of your ass, as usual. Sober up, take your meds, or just plain smarten up. You're embarrassing yourself in this thread.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Can't answer a simple question...

LMAO...

Not can't, won't, because it's irrelevant.

You on the other hand refuse to answer relevant questions all the time. LMAO.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:

You've certainly confirmed my theory that you didn't have a point to make and was just trolling.

Holy crap you are too funny.

This whole thread you started is an obvious attempt at trolling.

Now you are bitching like a little girl, crying and running away from a question that inconveniently reveals your foolishness.

Yet I'm trolling. rotflmao

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

Holy crap you are too funny.

This whole thread you started is an obvious attempt at trolling.

No it was an obvious attempt at enlightenment. But I'm not surprised that a little miscreant like you would consider education on a par with torture.

You're on record as stating that entropy is conserved. Now that's hilarious. You've got both scientists and creationists laughing at you. Too funny.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:

No it was an obvious attempt at enlightenment. But I'm not surprised that a little miscreant like you would consider education on a par with torture.

You're on record as stating that entropy is conserved. Now that's hilarious. You've got both scientists and creationists laughing at you. Too funny.

As long as you are not describing systems increasing in space , I stand by my assertions.

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

hey jem i found another religious bible is literal nutcase who uses slightly more convoluted thinking than you do. enjoy:
http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress...nt-torah-doubted-treated-lightly-quaint-fair/

when an atheist tries to show the bible as being wrong... my first question is - whose intepretation?

whats so screwed up about not wanting the opinions of men or even groups of fundamentalists to replace the actually words in the bible?

Even those who say they take every word in the bible as written by God, have to state that some of the words are used in metaphors.

For instance I have not met a fundamentalist who takes John Chapter 6 section starting in the 50s literally - they can not or they would be othrodox or Catholic...

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from jem:

when an atheist tries to show the bible as being wrong... my first question is - whose intepretation?

whats so screwed up about not wanting the opinions of men or even groups of fundamentalists to replace the actually words in the bible?

Even those who say they take every word in the bible as written by God, have to state that some of the words are used in metaphors.

For instance I have not met a fundamentalist who takes John Chapter 6 section starting in the 50s literally - they can not or they would be othrodox or Catholic...

old jerry falwell was fond of saying that every word in the bible is inerrant right down to the punctuation.

if its not too late for you and you still have some ability to think rationally after a lifetime of indoctrination you might listen to this story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJrud71gL8&feature=player_embedded#


Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from kut2k2:

Creationists like to pretend to be scientifically rigorous and say things like "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" without ever providing any proof or anything else beyond a lot of hand-waving and misdirection.

Here's proof that evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of a closed system will never decrease: it will either increase or remain the same. Entropy is a non-intuitive scientific concept that more or less equates to a measure of the randomness or disorder of a system. The more entropy in a system, the less ordered it is, as a rule.

The key element of the second law is that it only applies to closed systems. A closed system is a part of the universe that is essentially cut off from the rest of the universe. There is absolutely no exchange of matter or energy between a closed system and the rest of the universe (the "surroundings"). While there is no such as a perfectly closed system in the real world, a good example of a (almost) closed system would be a thermos bottle. You put your favorite beverage, hot or cold, into a well-made thermos bottle and the beverage inside the closed thermos will take a long time to achieve room temperature, unlike an open container that allows a heat exchange to occur readily and rather quickly between the beverage and the ambient atmosphere.

Creationists like to claim that evolution is based upon a decrease in entropy and therefore violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Rather than argue against this unsupported assertion as some scientists have, let's agree for the sake of argument. Fine: in order for evolution to occur in a biological system, there must be some corresponding decrease of entropy within the biological system.

My answer is, So What? The second law doesn't say that entropy can never decrease, it says that entropy can never decrease in a closed system.

The Earth is not a closed system. We receive a humongous amount of solar radiation during the day and re-radiate a goodly portion of it to the night sky.

Furthermore it should be obvious that all of life on earth is dependent directly or indirectly on the sun. Even the things that hate sunlight, like fungus, are totally dependent for their food on stuff that thrives on sunlight. If the sun stopped shining (radiating energy) this minute, all life on earth would be dead in a matter of days, and not just due to the temperature drop. Even if we heated all of Earth's surface with a vast array of geothermal heat exchangers, the lack of photosynthesis would kill the plant life, which would eventually kill all the herbivores and the predators that feed on them.

The sun is a giant thermonuclear furnace. It generates an enormous amount of radiation and has an associated enormous amount of entropy increase due to the spontaneous nuclear reactions responsible for solar energy. Does the "sun-plus-earth's-biosphere" system undergo a net increase in entropy or a net decrease due to evolution?

It turns out that the earth receives less than one billionth of the energy put out by the sun. Let's make the reasonable assumption that sun puts out energy equally in all directions. We are 93 million miles from the sun. The surface area of the earth that receives sunlight is half the total surface area of the earth. So basically we divide half the surface area of the earth (assuming a mean radius of 3,959 miles) by the surface area of a sphere with a radius of 93 million miles and the answer is just under one part per billion.

All of life on earth is the result of less than one billionth the energy output of the sun. Do I really have to argue that the associated entropy increase in the sun completely dwarfs whatever entropy change is taking place on earth due to evolution, be that later change positive or negative?

The second law of thermodynamics tells us nothing about evolution. It simply is not germane.

==========================
Cut2;

Well never hear it defined that narrow, but then Algore doesnt bother to correcty define consensus either . Cut2,You probably did that law more justice than Algore does the word consensus.LOL

You could see my point if you did a google on that law, !st google page....

Renters dont know much about title deeds;
but its usually a matter of [the renters]choice, not a non existance of title deeds.

Faith is the substance[title deed]............................................ Amplified bible.Hebrews 11;1, Holy Bible

Thank you

 

[jem]

Quote from vhehn:

old jerry falwell was fond of saying that every word in the bible is inerrant right down to the punctuation.

if its not too late for you and you still have some ability to think rationally after a lifetime of indoctrination you might listen to this story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJrud71gL8&feature=player_embedded#


Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition

I gave your video two minutes and turned it off.
Like with anyone else who is trying to sell me something... they have to have the balls to get to their bottom line.

Your video was wasting my time with a pathetic introduction. Very unlikely that a person who starts off like that can get to facts later.

I do not purchase based on emotions.