Creationism vs. Evolution

[MerlinsByte]

BY GALLO....Quote: Quote by: MerlinsByte...Albert Einstine... GALLO....Who?

Merlin writes...Albert Einstein , he was the dude that made up that energy equals mass squared by the speed of light thing...Oh, you couldn't make bring your massive intellect to know that the typo Einstine was Einstein? God help ya....; } >... I over estimated your intelligence...again! I was a typo a cut and paste thing. Hmmm write it down and read it over and over, it might sink in in a year or two.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merlin writes...Albert Einstein , he was the dude that made up that energy equals mass squared by the speed of light thing...Oh, you couldn't make bring your massive intellect to know that the typo Einstine was Einstein? God help ya....; } >... I over estimated your intelligence...again! I was a typo a cut and paste thing. Hmmm write it down and read it over and over, it might sink in in a year or two.

It wasn't a typo. You have mentioned someone named Albert Einstine on more than one occasion. You had to look that up this time, didn't you? It wasn't a typo, you didn't even know how to spell the man's name.

By the way, unlike you, I don't have to read out loud to understand what I read. I actually recognize words without sounding them out. So "Albert Einstine" was actually meaningless until I thought about how it should sound. It was really funny to realize that you didn't know how to spell the man's name, as famous as he is. You see, I haven't overestimated your intelligence.

[BaldEagle]

Quote by: gallo That's OK, but it seems that you didn't grasp the essentials. I do have a clue since I have had more religious education than most while at the same time having more scientific education than most. I actually undertook serious theological studies at one point in my life and spent a year reading the Bible with a Bible scholar, the smartest man I have ever known. I have also studied science, a bit of chemistry, a bit more of physics, and a boat load of biology. I've got more than a clue. If you have a question, the ask it. Otherwise you are correct. You added nothing.

I was not implying that you have no clue. I was providing a synopsis of the author's point of view. I have no reason to doubt your knowledge or comprehension of this or any other subject matter. I have read some of your posts and yes I do some fact checking because I don't know all that you know. But if in fact checking always comes out in your favor (as it has) then I will cease to check and begin to take you at your word (which I do). I have no doubt that if I wanted a refresher course in mitosis you'd be the one to go to. If somehow our topic turned to the Coriolis Effect you could explain it in great detail, even so that the not-so-knowledgeable could grasp it. You can probably explain the equations necessary to complete weapons system targeting on a fleet ballistic missile submarine, not to mention the ship's inertial navigation system complete with canonical equations. I am also certain that you could provide diagnosis for a given blood disease based on knowing the cellular conditions within the body. You could most likely lecture at length on AMI and CMI as it applies to B cells and CD8+ and CD4+. No doubt you could recommend an antibody to counter a high concentration of CD20+ cell markers. And if I told you I was ZAP-70 positive you could give me a pretty good guess about how long I have to live. I do not want to know how everything works, I want to know how it came to be. If you can tell me that I will go humbly and quietly into the night. Our spheres of knowledge are vastly different, but I am not stupid, simply uneducated. I will not question statements you make simply because I do not comprehend them. My first goal is to understand, because if I can't understand then I can't possess your knowledge. And frankly I think I can. I do not want to be at war with you here. I want to know things. You are most likely one I can learn from. I do not know exactly what prompted you to demean my original post. Perhaps a disagreement with the article I posted a link to. Hell, I never said I agreed with it or not. I just happened across it and thought it was light-heartedly amusing. If you didn't that is fine. What I would have liked is if you explained the holes in the article. But you chose to lash out at me as though I am a 4th grader butting into an adult conversation.

BaldEagle

[MerlinsByte]

What I would have liked is if you explained the holes in the article. But you chose to lash out at me as though I am a 4th grader butting into an adult conversation.

That is his style & he wont change .Beware of the fact that he will also insert words in your mouth, and lead you on tangents that have very little to do with the intent or spirit of the post or thread.

Do not try to appease him its like appeasing north Korea, its impossible, in fact I envision his physical appearance similar leader of N. Korea. Intelligent? Mabye.I think knowledgeable as a idiot savant would be closer to the truth. I am undecided if he is an even an adult.

Dont feel bad gallo I have a dose of all the above, except I'm easy to appease just say youre sorry.

mb





mb

[gallo]

Quote by: BaldEagle I was not implying that you have no clue.

Yes you were.

Quote by: BaldEagle I was providing a synopsis of the author's point of view.

It didn't seem so.

Quote by: BaldEagle I have no reason to doubt your knowledge or comprehension of this or any other subject matter. I have read some of your posts and yes I do some fact checking because I don't know all that you know. But if in fact checking always comes out in your favor (as it has) then I will cease to check and begin to take you at your word (which I do). I have no doubt that if I wanted a refresher course in mitosis you'd be the one to go to.

Could be. It's been years since I've cared, but I've got a ton of books, I understand them, and I am practiced at finding information and presenting it in an understandable way.

Quote by: BaldEagle If somehow our topic turned to the Coriolis Effect you could explain it in great detail, even so that the not-so-knowledgeable could grasp it.

Not so much. You would do better to ask a geophysicist or even a meteorologist. I know what it is, but I'm not the one to explain it to others.

Quote by: BaldEagle You can probably explain the equations necessary to complete weapons system targeting on a fleet ballistic missile submarine, not to mention the ship's inertial navigation system complete with canonical equations.

Nope. My elder son can handle the nuclear power plant on that ship or submarine - he's a graduate nuclear engineer. I might have a clue about target acquisition and tracking, but I'm sure that things have progressed far beyond my practical knowledge when I served as an air defense artilleryman.

Quote by: BaldEagle I am also certain that you could provide diagnosis for a given blood disease based on knowing the cellular conditions within the body. You could most likely lecture at length on AMI and CMI as it applies to B cells and CD8+ and CD4+. No doubt you could recommend an antibody to counter a high concentration of CD20+ cell markers. And if I told you I was ZAP-70 positive you could give me a pretty good guess about how long I have to live.

No. That would more likely be my wife or her employer and our friend, a doctor. But I suspect that even he would refer you to someone who specialized in that type of problem.

Maybe he would refer you to some sort of anger management counselor. You seem a bit over the edge. Why is that?

Quote by: BaldEagle I do not want to know how everything works, I want to know how it came to be. If you can tell me that I will go humbly and quietly into the night.

It depends. For the most part science investigates how things work. The more we understand how things work, the better able we are able to apply that understanding to the past to determine how it came to be. I certainly hope that you aren't asking for a detailed history from 5 million years ago.

Quote by: BaldEagle Our spheres of knowledge are vastly different, but I am not stupid, simply uneducated.

I am quite sure that I didn't refer to you as either stupid or uneducated. Why are you attacking me?

Quote by: BaldEagle I will not question statements you make simply because I do not comprehend them. My first goal is to understand, because if I can't understand then I can't possess your knowledge. And frankly I think I can.

I'm pretty sure you can. My advantage is one of education. I speak to the issues in my fields of expertise. I ask questions in other fields. I learn from geologists, physicists, cosmologists, and so on. I also learn from other biologists, as they learn from me.

Quote by: BaldEagle I do not want to be at war with you here.

I see. So that is why you told me that I don't have a clue about a field in which I have extensive education. In fact, you told me that I don't have a clue about two fields in which I have extensive education. If you weren't attempting to start a flame war, then exactly what did you have in mind?

Quote by: BaldEagle I want to know things. You are most likely one I can learn from. I do not know exactly what prompted you to demean my original post.

Really? Then I'll tell you again. You told me that I don't have a clue about two fields in which I have completed extensive studies that required years of application. I responded to your post that demeaned my knowledge and my education. As I said, I do have a clue.

Quote by: BaldEagle Perhaps a disagreement with the article I posted a link to. Hell, I never said I agreed with it or not. I just happened across it and thought it was light-heartedly amusing. If you didn't that is fine.

I didn't read it. The problem was your attitude. One more time, I do have a clue - bought and paid for with years of study, lots of money, and reading book after paper after book on the topic. And yet, you tell me that I don't have a clue.

Quote by: BaldEagle What I would have liked is if you explained the holes in the article.

You mean the one that I didn't read because of your insult?

Quote by: BaldEagle But you chose to lash out at me as though I am a 4th grader butting into an adult conversation.

Yep. That's about what it seemed. All you did was insult with a superior attitude. You told me that I don't have a clue about matters that I have studied since 1960. And now you take offense? How droll.

Here's the deal. I'm a nerd. I was in my glory in an academic setting where we exchanged ideas, sometime right and sometimes wrong - but always supported with data. I presume that you know lots of things that I don't. When those topics come up, I'll listen to you and ask questions that I might learn. I won't insult you in matters of which I have no knowledge. On the other hand, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then ask a question or just express your misunderstanding. I don't find that insulting. However, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't insult me with an attitude of superiority based on ignorance. Don't tell me that I don't have a clue. It makes you sound like a 4th grader.

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte deleted claptrap that answered no questions and addressed no issues - nothing but unjustified superior attitude based on ignorance.

You're out of the discussion Merlin. You don't seem to be able to actually answer any questions or address the issues. You have nothing left but insult.

Poor baby.

[MerlinsByte]

Poor baby.

merlin writes...Sniff ...really Gallo! I haven't insulted anyone, just spoke the truth. I started this thread. You could not, or would not understand the spirit or the intent of the topic . And please dont tell me what I think, you have been wrong 100% of the time you use your massive intelect to read my mind and put words into my mouth.

You are the only one here that is absolutely clueless. In fact everyone but you understood what this thread was about. Yes, when someone attempts to sabotage my thread I take offense. (that someone would be you gallo) so, I consider your responses, starting from the first inflammatory , malicious remark, only veiled insults. Not effective in debate just boring.

So boring ,that at least in one aspect, your sabotage suceeded. That is, your word salad responses were better than a toddy for putting me to sleep. Thanks for the free sleeping aid.

So, it is agreed that you dont, and never have, understood content, spirit or intent, of my original thread. If this misunderstanding of yours wasn't by your own design ,E mail me and I will assist you with the basics of creative thinking.

Gallo, your responses were mean spirited , redundant, and were meant to harm me, but I forgive you. Do me a favor the next time that you reply to one of my threads, (if there is a next time), be a real man, and stay on topic, make your responses more than veiled taunts or do not respond at all, please.

Is that too much to ask? I dont have time for your games, but do have time for your honest question/responses.

mb

ps, The offer of a bet is still open, but I see that you will not risk anything tangible . When you question someone's honesty in a malicious manner you pay the price. if you had accepted the terms of my bet , your bank account would be in a deficit by now..... ; } >

[gallo]

Quote by: MerlinsByte I dont have time for your games, but do have time for your honest question/responses.

But you refuse to answer honest questions. Just look at your reaction to the adaptive changes thread. All you do is pretend that your fantasies are meaningful and have real scientific application. All you do is demonstrate your ignorance of what science is or how it works.

If it's important to you to show that you have some sort of degree that you think is meaningful to these discussions, then put up or shut up. It came up before and I told you about mine and you ducked and pretended that there was some kind of bet. I'm perfectly satisfied in knowing that you don't have a degree in science, especially not biological science, geology, or physics.

[pbaylis]

Can anyone explain why humans lost their hair, but monkeys and other animals did not, even though they live in hot climates? It doesn't seem to be a very good evolutionary step to lose one's protective coating. And I hope no-one is going to seriously suggest that we evolved into clothes.
My take is that humans were created naked to exist in a perfect climate where clothing wasn't needed, yes the garden of Eden.

[supergenius586]

Well, some types of monkeys do lose their hair, just as humans do. And the reasons other animals don't is because that is not part of their genetic scheme. It's like how some animal species can regenerate lost limbs while humans cannot. A species is adapted to its environment. While I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution, despite its convincing evidense, we must admit to ourselves that this world pretty much is designed perfectly to fit every species to wherever it might live. If done by natural evolution, or the guiding hand of a Higher power.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: pbaylis Can anyone explain why humans lost their hair, but monkeys and other animals did not, even though they live in hot climates? It doesn't seem to be a very good evolutionary step to lose one's protective coating. And I hope no-one is going to seriously suggest that we evolved into clothes. My take is that humans were created naked to exist in a perfect climate where clothing wasn't needed, yes the garden of Eden.

Maybe it has to do with diet. We eat so much crap that our bodies have not evolved to eat yet. Human diet has advanced so quickly, that it will take millenia for our bodies to evolve to take advantage of what we eat. Our bodies are still optamized for a hunter/gatherer diet.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: pbaylis And I hope no-one is going to seriously suggest that we evolved into clothes. My take is that humans were created naked to exist in a perfect climate where clothing wasn't needed, yes the garden of Eden.

Sorry for the double, but I wanted to adress this seperately.

The evidance actually suggests that we did evolve into clothes. No other animal closely related to us lost thier hair, regardless of the climate. So what is different that made us lose our har? Intellegance. Hair is good for warmth and protection, but it is a liability when considering parasites. Once our ancestors were intellegant enough to wear skins, the advantage for hair would radically decline. This is mainstream science.

Garden of eden? I'm not even going to touch that one. This is a scientific debate.

[youbetyourwrasse]

WHOOAAA!

If I had wanted to be completely misunderstood I would have gone to the "soap opera plot discussion board" and emphatically tried to convince them that they are WASTING THEIR TIME.
We need to convince each other of some truth, if not us, who then?
[teehee I don't really know if anybody read my post or not, so I can't say I was misunderstood! :) ]


*****************************************
Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2

You can read every real text book on science and know everything that is real, as far as our minds can follow, but you will still never be able to say that a God is real, nor that we were created. How can we find out if God made us? We can't. Because it's impossible to prove the unreal.
******************************************

Gallo wonders, but I understand. teehee. Gallo, don't throw the meaning void back on Soccerfreak as if it's Soccerfreak's failing when you don't have a dictionary and the comprehension of meaning requires more effort than a rote memorization of "breaking news" as reported by Fox News. :)

**********************
gallo
Occasional poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 155

Quote:
Quote by: Prometheus
Let's not start bitching about typo's. That's just juvinile.

It's what?
**********************
It's funny. but so's my dog's fart. Do you have a POINT to make, or are you just lonely?

MerlinB YES TO EDUACTION AGENDA STOP PLAN FOR REVOLUTION STOP LETS START WITH WAKING UP THE LOCALS STOP

Seriously, God is real, the Earth is 4 1/2 +/- billion years old, we have many anscestors, everything works perfectly (unless it needs adjustment,) we have everything we need, we are special, we have choices, and Natural Selection is (oops) another Paradigm that had it's time but was doomed for usurpation.

As for God's existance, we who know have NOTHING to prove to anyone else... we just thought you should know.

Natural Selection as (bullsh*t) Science

Science is observation based. Observe Nature, one of Natural Selection's most famous playgrounds. Why do things die? Good question as to selection. Have you ever watched nature shows on PBS or Discovery Channel? "The Lions looked for their victim...of the herd they sought the sick, the old, the injured or the young..." I could be the fastest antelope ever born but an accident may mean I'm eaten before lunch. Why is Natural Selection a Paradigm to the past, to the ignorant, to the socially &/or economically oppressed? Because it ignores chance. It shuns that which we accept as truth; that outcome aren't predictable, and luck (or the lack of it) is a real thing. Chance is the great equalizer, but choice and will probably count for something in the scheme of survival. If natural selection was truly in operation, then all babies of all kinds could be born spitting fire and shooting venom!

Oh, and one does NOT have to be a religious scholar to understand what they read in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Qu'ran (am I in trouble?) Some things make sense, others don't (the book of Joshua for example, and how to demoralize your enemy by gutting their pregnant wives and parading the dead fetuses.) Jesus says to love our enemies. The Qu'ran tells us we can't displease God by eating whatever our host serves (even if dietary laws tell us not to.)

Compassion.
Forgiveness.
Kindness.
Charity.

This is where Peace lies. This is where God promised it would be. You don't have to believe a religion. Religion is manmade, and therefore, a simulacrum. You don't even have to believe in God, though it makes faith in these ideals easier. We all want peace more than conflict. We all want some, more than all, more than nothing. We all know the "simple things" (the birth of a child etc) mean more than the "big things" (a big $ raise etc.) And we all know that our offensive, politically INcorrect, perhaps INtolerant selves are OKAY, that anything else would mean God is a cruel bastard. And that's just not so.

YBYW

[belverron]

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse It shuns that which we accept as truth; that outcome aren't predictable, and luck (or the lack of it) is a real thing.

Individual outcomes are not, but trends are. Look at a game of poker. Individual hands are won and lost based almost entirely on luck. But great amounts of money are won by skillful betters in the long run, and lost by those less able.

[Starboy]

But in the case of poker if all players understand the odds and play them accordingly then no one has an advantage and the outcomes become random again. In nature all things natural understand and follow nature equally well. There are no such things as atoms or molecules that know how to play the odds.

Starboy

[Hostile55]

"The Lions looked for their victim...of the herd they sought the sick, the old, the injured or the young..." I could be the fastest antelope ever born but an accident may mean I'm eaten before lunch. Why is Natural Selection a Paradigm to the past, to the ignorant, to the socially &/or economically oppressed? Because it ignores chance. It shuns that which we accept as truth; that outcome aren't predictable, and luck (or the lack of it) is a real thing. Chance is the great equalizer, but choice and will probably count for something in the scheme of survival. If natural selection was truly in operation, then all babies of all kinds could be born spitting fire and shooting venom!

Yes but the chances of an antelope(the fastest antelope in the world say) being caught by a lion that is slower than it are pretty slim. Have you ever watched wildlife programs? That is why antelope are fast. All the slow ones - for whattever reason they are slow - get eaten.
Now I fail to see how a baby of any kind could be born spitting fire. The shooting venom part could happen but is highly unlikely, unless it is a baby snake ofcourse. A human baby could have mutations which allow the salivary glands to; a) produce copious amounts of saliva; b) produce potent toxins (nerve agent, digestive enzymes, etc.) ; c) ejaculate the resultant "venom" via contaction of the tongue (something which I can do in small amounts).
Ofcourse this would be random mutation and not natural selection. Natural selection is the proccess by which "good" mutations which provide an organism with a better chance of survival, are reproduced more than "bad" mutations, and whether a mutation is "good" or "bad" depends entirely on circumstance. So perhaps humans will evolve to shoot venom. As opposed to drooling shit. you clearly have a very limited grasp of evloutionary theory.


On a more general note, I have noticed that creationists tend to nit-pick at the various blank spots in "the theory of evolution" or try to point out inconsistencies in the science behind it(which invariably turn out to be just a lacking on their part to actually understand the science), without ever actually trying to provide evidence for their version of events. This is one of the problems with trying to discover the truth by establishing evidence, people who do not feel comfortable with the truth constantly attempt to point out where you are wrong. Whereas faith is perfect. No one can argue with faith, because ther is no requirment for evidence if someone has faith. I had vigorous, if somewhat longwinded, debate with a spiritualist of sorts on another forum, and he informed me that I could only see God if I first of all believed in God. I ofcourse told him that this was a perposterous notion, because I am a scientist, and the only way I could believe in God was If I could see God. A bit of a catch 22 situation. Give me the equation for God. There is a lyric in a Marylin Manson song: "God is a number you cannot count to." Perhaps there is a God of sorts. But what is thinking about that going to acheive? I don't like getting myself involved in hypothetical discussions about the possibility of one thing or another which can never be observed in any way, or whether or not some kind of omnipresent intelligence created existence, because of the fact that it IS hypothetical. Abstactions of abstractions. When I questioned whether he saw God, He told me that he sees God every day. That he sees God when he looks at a flower. I told him that he mearly perceives God when he looks at a flower but still only sees a flower. He "sees" God in all the patterns that repeat throughout the universe. Abstractions of abstractions to the point where anything is possible, you just have to make all the appropriate intelectual conections and you will understand. And what is the result? Hinduism. Christianity. Islam. Some kind of bizaare sunshine cult from california. The list is huge. Why is the list so big? Because the human imagination can vear off on so many different tangents that the possibilities for belief systems is endless. I am more iterested in the here and now. Or at least the recent history, and in universal terms the beginnings of life are relatively recent and so is something which I think about regularly and enjoy learning about. I only want to know the what is true. Religous fanatics only want to preserve their fantasy at the expense of knowlege, and dress it up as truth. Contemplating God is fair enough, but to actually believe, whole-hartedly, in a God base on scripture? Please! then have the audacity to dispute someone elses ideas for whattever reason. Arrogant to say the least.

To round up I think it is worth pointing out that there are many religons but only one science. And humans did not create science as a way of explaining existence. We discovered it.

[gallo]

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse Science is observation based.

Yes, it is.

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse Observe Nature, one of Natural Selection's most famous playgrounds.

There are others? Are you sure you know what natural selection is?

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse Why do things die? Good question as to selection.

But that's only one question, and many times the question that requires the least thought. We might also ask why things survive. We might ask why some are more successful in reproducing than others. We might ask how a characteristic or a combination of characteristics lends a survival advantage. We might investigate why beak size is important to the survival of finches in the Galapagos. Studying natural selection is much more than looking at why things die.

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse Have you ever watched nature shows on PBS or Discovery Channel? "The Lions looked for their victim...of the herd they sought the sick, the old, the injured or the young..."

Yes. And that statement is probably correct. It seems quite logical that predators would learn to prey on the weak since that would seem to be a more successful strategy.

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse I could be the fastest antelope ever born but an accident may mean I'm eaten before lunch. Why is Natural Selection a Paradigm to the past, to the ignorant, to the socially &/or economically oppressed? Because it ignores chance.

Absolute ignorance. Don't you think that it would be better if you actually tried to learn the basics before you tried to discuss it? Perhaps if you spent less time sniffing the gas that your dog passes and more time reading you would be aware that natural selection does not ignore chance.

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse It shuns that which we accept as truth; that outcome aren't predictable, and luck (or the lack of it) is a real thing.

No it doesn't.

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse Chance is the great equalizer, but choice and will probably count for something in the scheme of survival.

Actually, it's not. Chance doesn't make everything equal. Since you don't seem to have actually tried to learn what natural selection is, I'll tell you. It is not a guarantee of survival. Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of organisms that possess beneficial characteristics. Natural selection is a statistical tendency for the organisms with more beneficial characteristics survive to produce more offspring than those organisms that don't have those characteristics. It is also the tendency of organisms that possess deleterious characteristics to survive to reproduce offspring in fewer numbers.

Quote by: youbetyourwrasse If natural selection was truly in operation, then all babies of all kinds could be born spitting fire and shooting venom!

Why would that happen? Why would that be adaptive? What would be the source of that flammable gas, since humans exhale carbon dioxide - it doesn't burn you know. You should know that the flammable gas (methane) comes out the other end since you spend so much time investigating that and giggling about it.

[dthmstr254]

please explain to me how the evolutionists can use a theory to bolster one piece of their evidence while leaving out the fact that it contradicts them at the beginning, E.G. the first law of entropy states "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any natural process."
if you can destroy the First Law of Thermodynamics please explain how, cause as you say "When I debate a creationist, I supply a disclaimer that states I am not interested in arguing theology. Theology is a terribly boring topic for me when it comes to most people. I am confident enough that I can destroy any creationist argument (within the scope of my knowledge and ability), without having to cogitate on the possible existence or non-existence of God."
if this had nothing to do with the existence of God, then name a single natural process that can create energy

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 please explain to me how the evolutionists can use a theory to bolster one piece of their evidence while leaving out the fact that it contradicts them at the beginning,

The answer is quite simple. Evolutionists don't "bolster" their evidence by using a theory. Theories are explanations of the evidence. I think the problem may be that you have little understanding of what science is or how it works. Most especially, you seem to have no idea of what the theories of evolution are or on what evidence they are based. Did it ever occur to you that you should actually learn the basics of something that you claim to oppose? Otherwise, how do you know that you oppose it if you don't know what it is?

Quote by: dthmstr254 E.G. the first law of entropy states "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any natural process."

And it seems that you are also ignorant of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a "law of entropy." Some creationist hack made that up. If you had bothered to learn at least the basics of what you are talking about, you would know that you are talking nonsense. Since in this sentence you call it the "first law of entropy" and in the next you call it the "First Law of Thermodynamics" it logically follows that you think that entropy is Thermodynamics. Ignorant in the extreme.

The first law of thermodynamics actually states that the energy content of closed system is constant. That presumes that you actually know the meaning of words like "system" and what a "closed system" is, and that you actually can define energy and the meaning of the word "constant." I suspect that you don't and can't.

Let me state it for you in another way, not limiting the definition to a closed system. The first law states that the amount of energy added to a system is equal to the sum of its increase in heat energy and the work done on the system.

Quote by: dthmstr254 if you can destroy the First Law of Thermodynamics please explain how, cause as you say "When I debate a creationist, I supply a disclaimer that states I am not interested in arguing theology. Theology is a terribly boring topic for me when it comes to most people. I am confident enough that I can destroy any creationist argument (within the scope of my knowledge and ability), without having to cogitate on the possible existence or non-existence of God."

Who destroyed the first law of thermodynamics? What does that have to do with the existence of God? What does any of that have to do with evolution? How is theology a subject of study of either thermodynamics or of evolution? What if, for the sake of argument, I concede that your superstitious beliefs are correct and that your god exists. How does that change physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geology, and biology? Please be specific.

Quote by: dthmstr254 if this had nothing to do with the existence of God, then name a single natural process that can create energy

Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Or even cellular respiration. Of course, you don't understand why your question is nonsense. If this does have something to do with the existence of your god, then you name a process that can create energy.

[Starboy]

Is is just amazing. Isaiah in another thread thinks that creationinst are giving evolution a fair evaluation and all one has to do is look at this thread and see example after example after example of creationists talking out their asses without a clue regarding the explanation called the Theory of Evolution. There has not been a single post by a creationist that was not filled with misconceptions about science or physics or geology or biology or you name it. It is not just ignorance, it is profound willfull ignorance.

Starboy