Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 read my response to Isherwood. remember that on the other hemisphere, it is summer when we have winter. they heat up, we cool down. perfectly sound according to thermodynamics.

What ignorant babble. It seems that you are not aware that it is the sun that is responsible for the heating of the earth during the summer. Obviously you are just making this up as you go without actually thinking about what you are saying. I'll give you a hint at the answer - air.

Quote by: dthmstr254 improvement by evolution is the spontaneous mutation of a simple lifeform into a more complex lifeform, IE a protozoa into a multicelled organism.

No it's not."Improvement" is not an evolutionary concept. There is no requirement ever that makes it necessary for any organism to "improve." You actually didn't define "improvement," you just gave an incorrect example of what you think it is. You also introduced another concept that you now have to define. What do you mean by "complex?"

Quote by: dthmstr254 since we are all the way back to the first stage in what you call "the origin of life", what did the protozoa lose in order to become the next step in the evolutionary chain? in order to improve in one area, it has to lose something in another area, thus "unimprove"

What is the first stage? What do you mean by that. Why does a protozoan have to improve? Why does it have to lose something in order to do so. Please explain how evolution forms a chain.

I thought we were talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why did you change the subject. Wouldn't it be better to stay on topic? Why don't you demonstrate that you actually have some knowledge of the topic and take the Thermo Test? Are you afraid that you will look foolish? Too late.

Quote by: dthmstr254 by "improvement" and "unimprovement" I mean the gain or loss of order.

Great. More terms for you to define. How do "improvement" and "unimprovement" mean gain of loss of order? What do you mean by order? Why is that meaningful to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Quote by: dthmstr254 not according to your encyclopedia it doesn't. Wikpedia has this definition: this has nothing to do with the definition you gave.

Actually, it does. Your understanding is so bad that you don't realize it. My definition is just a bit more simple because it doesn't use the words that seem to confuse you, like "internal disorder," "system," "thermodynamic equilibrium," "internal configurations." The two definitions are actually equivalent.

Quote by: dthmstr254 I havent argued that at all. (i.e. freezing water increases entropy in the surrounding air.)

Yes you have. You claimed that some unspecified "they" in the other hemisphere had some increase in entropy because water froze in this hemisphere.

Quote by: dthmstr254 what about the mother. when a woman bears child, certain problems start arising within the mother's system, IE morning sickness, mood swings, hormonal activity, etc. all are caused by the high amount of entropy that is required to be taken by the system in order to produce a living child. ask any mother, and they will tell you, the child is getting the easy part of the bargain.

That idea is moronic.

Quote by: dthmstr254 if you can argue with Dr Jay L. Wile, you can then say someone has duped me. until then, sea reservado sobre la prueba.

It doesn't matter who duped you. Your are repeating nonsense.

Quote by: dthmstr254 notice that every step in the supposed chain of human evolution. we lost the tail and several other parts of the body to improve in other areas. what if you are going to apply this to one part of the chain, you must apply it to the other.

What nonsense. Why would the loss of a tail be necessary to improve another part? What are you talking about? I thought we were talking about the 2nd law. What chain of human evolution? What are we applying to one part of what chain?

[gallo]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Let's keep in mind that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to Earth in all cases. We are not an isolated system. And so the universe doesn't necessarily have to be one either.

Actually, the 2nd law applies to everything, all the time. It's just that it is stated in terms of closed systems, i.e. systems that contains a fixed quantity of matter while exchanging energy with the surroundings. An isolated system is a special case system that doesn't interact with the surroundings in any way. Of course, an isolated system doesn't actually exist, and the laws of thermodynamics are idealized statements anyway. However, heat does not move from cold toward hot in any kind of system, which is what the 2nd law says.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: gallo Actually, the 2nd law applies to everything, all the time. It's just that it is stated in terms of closed systems, i.e. systems that contains a fixed quantity of matter while exchanging energy with the surroundings. An isolated system is a special case system that doesn't interact with the surroundings in any way. Of course, an isolated system doesn't actually exist, and the laws of thermodynamics are idealized statements anyway. However, heat does not move from cold toward hot in any kind of system, which is what the 2nd law says.

Isn't it possible for the universe not to be a closed system?

[RickSp]

I share the scepticism related to using simple thermodynamics as applied to models as large as the universe itself.

We have previously mentioned that the universe may be considered an isolated system. As such, it may be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that its total entropy is constantly increasing. It has been speculated that the universe is fated to a heat death in which all the energy ends up as a homogeneous distribution of thermal energy, so that no more work can be extracted from any source. If the universe can be considered to have increasing entropy, then, as Roger Penrose has pointed out, an important role in the disordering process is played by gravity, which causes dispersed matter to accumulate into stars, which collapse eventually into black holes. Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes. The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamical model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.

Entropy

[dthmstr254]

I would have to say that we are quite more complex than the simple protozoa. we also have many more abilities than a protozoa. thus, an improvement.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 I would have to say that we are quite more complex than the simple protozoa. we also have many more abilities than a protozoa. thus, an improvement.

You still haven't defined anything. What do you mean by "more complex?" What do you mean by "simple?" What are "abilities?" Define "improvement." What good does it do to toss words about without telling us what you mean. At this rate, if you make yourself look like a fool, all you have to do is claim that you didn't mean that. It's impossible to argue against you because your assertions are a moving target.

You're home schooled, aren't you? I've known several teachers who got home schooled students when they finally entered the public schools. Like you, they were scientific illiterates without the ability to actually reason things out.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: dthmstr254 I would have to say that we are quite more complex than the simple protozoa. we also have many more abilities than a protozoa. thus, an improvement.

And what exactly would you consider unimprovement?

[gallo]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Isn't it possible for the universe not to be a closed system?

Sorry, I didn't see this until tonight.

The answer is, who knows? It's possible that the universe is a closed system. In fact, it is possible that it is an isolated system. We don't know and there doesn't seem to be any way to find out at present.

But that question is totally irrelevant to the question of whether heat can move from a colder body to a hotter one. It can't - or should I say it doesn't. In statistical mechanics there is a very small probability that if you put a cup of hot coffee in your refrigerator for one minute, when you remove it, it will be hotter than when you put it in.

But I digress.We don't know if the universe is isolated, closed, or open. We have no evidence of any matter or energy exchange with the surroundings. In fact, we have no evidence of the nature of the surroundings.

But of course, that doesn't matter to the open system of the earth that has continual input of energy from the sun. And that input causes decreases of entropy frequently, always offset by an equal or greater increase in the surroundings.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Sorry, I didn't see this until tonight. The answer is, who knows? It's possible that the universe is a closed system. In fact, it is possible that it is an isolated system. We don't know and there doesn't seem to be any way to find out at present. But that question is totally irrelevant to the question of whether heat can move from a colder body to a hotter one. It can't - or should I say it doesn't. In statistical mechanics there is a very small probability that if you put a cup of hot coffee in your refrigerator for one minute, when you remove it, it will be hotter than when you put it in. But I digress.We don't know if the universe is isolated, closed, or open. We have no evidence of any matter or energy exchange with the surroundings. In fact, we have no evidence of the nature of the surroundings. But of course, that doesn't matter to the open system of the earth that has continual input of energy from the sun. And that input causes decreases of entropy frequently, always offset by an equal or greater increase in the surroundings.

http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/
this is a great site to show entropy in progress, assuming that the big bang theory is correct as you say, there is an amount of time between now and the explosion. in this site, run the java applet and create a beehive and expand it into a honey farm (four beehives pointing outwards). this will result in an explosion and the cells will start to expand. however, after several generations, the cells will arrange themselves into simple forms that, without aid, will stay the same or cycle like an oscilator. this is proof that life cannot improve through random movements of cells, in fact, it will devolve, tending toward simplicity without intervention from a source that knows when, where and how to place the next cell.
oh, and if you assume that the universe is the result of a huge explosion, you must also assume that the universe is a closed system, because there is a certain amount of time between now and the "creation" of the universe, and that means that the particles would fly only to the distance from the center that their speed allowed them to.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo You still haven't defined anything. What do you mean by "more complex?" What do you mean by "simple?" What are "abilities?" Define "improvement." What good does it do to toss words about without telling us what you mean. At this rate, if you make yourself look like a fool, all you have to do is claim that you didn't mean that. It's impossible to argue against you because your assertions are a moving target. You're home schooled, aren't you? I've known several teachers who got home schooled students when they finally entered the public schools. Like you, they were scientific illiterates without the ability to actually reason things out.

are you just ignorant? I don't need to explain the words!!!
more complex: the things a human can do are far more complicated than what a protozoa can do.
simple: Not involved or complicated; easy
abilities: The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.
improvement:
The act or process of improving.
The state of being improved.
A change or addition that improves.

oh, and please cease with the name calling, it labels you as an elnglish illiterate. I aced my physics final, given by a doctor in physics, with over 96/100 points, and the entropy part was 100%. my act on the science was 27/31. I never needed my SAT because I got into college on my ACT alone.
the fact is, homeschooled students enter college and have a HIGHER GPA than public school students. in fact the percentile goes up by 37 percentile points on grade average if you poll only homeschoolers. if you want these stats refer to the following sites:
http://www.uhea.org/stats.html
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000221.asp
http://www.flhef.org/pdf/hebrief.pdf

seems that the statistics weigh against you. homeschooled students have consistently BETTER education than public school students.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 this is a great site to show entropy in progress, assuming that the big bang theory is correct as you say, there is an amount of time between now and the explosion. in this site, run the java applet and create a beehive and expand it into a honey farm (four beehives pointing outwards). this will result in an explosion and the cells will start to expand. however, after several generations, the cells will arrange themselves into simple forms that, without aid, will stay the same or cycle like an oscilator. this is proof that life cannot improve through random movements of cells, in fact, it will devolve, tending toward simplicity without intervention from a source that knows when, where and how to place the next cell.

So you are so scientifically illiterate that you believe that a computer program running with the limitations set by the programmer actually "prove" something about life? What does that have to do with life and the theories of evolution, which have nothing to do with "random movements of cells."

Quote by: dthmstr254 oh, and if you assume that the universe is the result of a huge explosion, you must also assume that the universe is a closed system, because there is a certain amount of time between now and the "creation" of the universe, and that means that the particles would fly only to the distance from the center that their speed allowed them to.

That doesn't even make sense. I guess that could be because what you think I must assume doesn't follow from what you think I do assume. A major problem with homeschoolers is that they don't actually learn how to think things through. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 are you just ignorant? I don't need to explain the words!!!

Of course you do. How are we supposed to know what you are talking about if you don't?

Quote by: dthmstr254 more complex: the things a human can do are far more complicated than what a protozoa can do. simple: Not involved or complicated; easy abilities: The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something. improvement: The act or process of improving. The state of being improved. A change or addition that improves.

Actually that was meaningless babble in the context of the discussion. And you still haven't answered the questions about thermodynamics.

Quote by: dthmstr254 oh, and please cease with the name calling, it labels you as an elnglish illiterate.

Name calling labels me as illiterate? Do you ever actually think about what you are saying? And how is speculating that you are home schooled because your inability to think clearly seems typical of home schoolers calling names? Are you ashamed to have been home schooled? It seems it is with justification.

Quote by: dthmstr254 I aced my physics final, given by a doctor in physics, with over 96/100 points, and the entropy part was 100%. my act on the science was 27/31. I never needed my SAT because I got into college on my ACT alone.

Sure. I believe that. And you've got a bridge for sale too I'll bet. If true it points out the problem I have been talking about. By your posts on this board you reveal yourself to be scientifically illiterate and severely lacking in any ability to think things out. Your home school physics test was probably composed of a series of meaningless facts with no clear relationship to each other that you had memorized in order to regurgitate them. You certainly didn't learn what science is or how it works. And if you actually get into college you won't study science - too much remedial work to do.

Gosh! I wonder how I was able to tell that you were home schooled? Couldn't be your lack of ability science and your inability to think rather than regurgitate, could it?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Of course you do. How are we supposed to know what you are talking about if you don't? Actually that was meaningless babble in the context of the discussion. And you still haven't answered the questions about thermodynamics. Name calling labels me as illiterate? Do you ever actually think about what you are saying? And how is speculating that you are home schooled because your inability to think clearly seems typical of home schoolers calling names? Are you ashamed to have been home schooled? It seems it is with justification. Sure. I believe that. And you've got a bridge for sale too I'll bet. If true it points out the problem I have been talking about. By your posts on this board you reveal yourself to be scientifically illiterate and severely lacking in any ability to think things out. Your home school physics test was probably composed of a series of meaningless facts with no clear relationship to each other that you had memorized in order to regurgitate them. You certainly didn't learn what science is or how it works. And if you actually get into college you won't study science - too much remedial work to do. Gosh! I wonder how I was able to tell that you were home schooled? Couldn't be your lack of ability science and your inability to think rather than regurgitate, could it?

this discussion is over, if anyone else would like to debate instead of flame, please step up, this guy is now on my ignore list.
to you Gallo, the number one way to end up on that list is to insult my friends. I have homeschooled friends who are currently acing the college Biochemistry and Biology courses. most of my friends are homeschooled. you, in saying that all homeschooled children are illiterate idiots, have insulted my friends and I will NOT stand for that. as for our little debate, you would be best to step out, because there is no further response forthcoming from me. over and out.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would just like to say this on this topic.

Education was started as a way for people to learn the basic tenets of academics. Reading, writing, mathmatics, intellectual pursuits.

Sports, do not belong in public schools.
Religion, does not belong in public schools.

They violated the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights when they allowed "Under God" to be in the pledge, and it has been a strong downhill run ever since.

Evolution, natural selection, attempts to answer the question with science, whereas religion is a method of faith.

Evolution, is still being explored, and the book is still open.
Religion, the book is closed, and your faith is all you have, which of course, can't be proven.

If people want religion in school, they always have the option of a private school.
The public shouldn't be forced to endure religious education, against their will, with their own tax dollars.

That is my opinion.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would just like to say this on this topic. Education was started as a way for people to learn the basic tenets of academics. Reading, writing, mathmatics, intellectual pursuits. Sports, do not belong in public schools. Religion, does not belong in public schools. They violated the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights when they allowed "Under God" to be in the pledge, and it has been a strong downhill run ever since. Evolution, natural selection, attempts to answer the question with science, whereas religion is a method of faith. Evolution, is still being explored, and the book is still open. Religion, the book is closed, and your faith is all you have, which of course, can't be proven. If people want religion in school, they always have the option of a private school. The public shouldn't be forced to endure religious education, against their will, with their own tax dollars. That is my opinion.

did you know that the idea of public schools came with religion???
the public school history is dominated by the names Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Reformers in the years preceding the Renaissance. most of the people who actively participated in the Rennaissance learned from these public schools, run by Christians.
even today, there is a large number of mainstream scientists who do not agree with evolution as science. ever heard of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism? Darwinism cannot be proven like the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. there is NO scientific test to prove that random mutations and natural selection can explain the complexity of living beings. nobody can go back in time and prove that some primordial slime of red goo and amino acids (which can't in and of themselves form a living being) turned into life as we know it. in fact, the experiment that created this red goo was flawed, because the scientists never watched what happened after the goo was created. one scientist did, and noticed that the amino acids broke down completely in 7 hours, because the red goo dispersed and the amino acids were exposed to the atmosphere. these results are devastating to the evolutionist claim; therefore causing them to overlook them and say that "i would be more correct to call it the LAW of evolution" [quote from Chattanooga's NPR (public radio) date 10/21/05 at 2:45 pm] claims like this caused your scientists in the "dissenting" group to turn away from evolution and to other answers. a good read for you would probably be Case for a Creator by Dr. Lee Strobel. it shows the walk of an atheist, with a doctorate in law, who interviewed many top figures in the fields of evolution and creationism, with a heavy bias for the evolutionist side, and came to the same results as we have.
also, as for the public school issue you have: why not just allow the students to choose which one they want to learn, or maybe if they want to hear both sides of the coin. you know, you can't understand an issue unless you look at it from both sides of the coin.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 did you know that the idea of public schools came with religion??? the public school history is dominated by the names Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Reformers in the years preceding the Renaissance. most of the people who actively participated in the Rennaissance learned from these public schools, run by Christians. even today, there is a large number of mainstream scientists who do not agree with evolution as science. ever heard of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism? Darwinism cannot be proven like the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. there is NO scientific test to prove that random mutations and natural selection can explain the complexity of living beings. nobody can go back in time and prove that some primordial slime of red goo and amino acids (which can't in and of themselves form a living being) turned into life as we know it. in fact, the experiment that created this red goo was flawed, because the scientists never watched what happened after the goo was created. one scientist did, and noticed that the amino acids broke down completely in 7 hours, because the red goo dispersed and the amino acids were exposed to the atmosphere. these results are devastating to the evolutionist claim; therefore causing them to overlook them and say that "i would be more correct to call it the LAW of evolution" [quote from Chattanooga's NPR (public radio) date 10/21/05 at 2:45 pm] claims like this caused your scientists in the "dissenting" group to turn away from evolution and to other answers. a good read for you would probably be Case for a Creator by Dr. Lee Strobel. it shows the walk of an atheist, with a doctorate in law, who interviewed many top figures in the fields of evolution and creationism, with a heavy bias for the evolutionist side, and came to the same results as we have. also, as for the public school issue you have: why not just allow the students to choose which one they want to learn, or maybe if they want to hear both sides of the coin. you know, you can't understand an issue unless you look at it from both sides of the coin.

Absolute toss. You're just trolling again. First of all, there is NOT a large number of scientists who disagree with evolution with science. What debate that happens is HOW evolution occurs, it is very widely accepted that evolution occurred and is the explanation for the diversity of life. There is no such thing as Darwinism, the Theory of Evolution is very much science. It is the pillar of biology, without it, much of biological science would make no sense.
Second of all, you're lumping abiogenesis into it. Time and time again, we've told you that evolution begins with the first life, how it came about is still anyone's guess. Be it god or random occurrence, it has no relevance to evolution suffice that it did.
You are as blind as a bat when it comes to science, you wouldn't know evidence if hit you square in the face like an atomic bomb.

[Scribbler1]

I am going back a long time here to when I read the Communist Manifesto, so I may be wrong, but aren't public schools a Communist idea?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Pooeypants Absolute toss. You're just trolling again. First of all, there is NOT a large number of scientists who disagree with evolution with science. What debate that happens is HOW evolution occurs, it is very widely accepted that evolution occurred and is the explanation for the diversity of life. There is no such thing as Darwinism, the Theory of Evolution is very much science. It is the pillar of biology, without it, much of biological science would make no sense. Second of all, you're lumping abiogenesis into it. Time and time again, we've told you that evolution begins with the first life, how it came about is still anyone's guess. Be it god or random occurrence, it has no relevance to evolution suffice that it did. You are as blind as a bat when it comes to science, you wouldn't know evidence if hit you square in the face like an atomic bomb.

then show a single experiment that supports macro evolution.
there is none and that is why we have the Scientific dissent from Darwinism. micro mutation happens, that is a proven fact that no creationist denies, but over all the years of documented micromutations, the flu has remained the flu and canines have remained canine. there is no documented mutation that has proven to change the species at that level. furthermore, if every animal were to have the same origin and arrived here through the same process of natural selection, they would all be at the same tier. if you explode something in a zero gravity sequence, the explosion is round, and all particles remain equidistant from the center. if you were to add the distances together using the negative values for everything that favored the left side and positive values for those on the right, the total would be zero, assuming you measured every piece accurately.
here is a little tidbit from my past. I used to be an atheist too. that is where I earned my knowledge in physics. I learned it from what I thought was an objective source (which I now know that objectivity does not exist in today's world), and earned it from a doctor of physical science. then, when I put evolution to the test, using all the science I had learned, and it failed miserably, I turned to other theories, and the only other theory that held any water was God. I now know God personally and do not wish to change my views, which have survived even the hardest critics.
as for you mr scribbler, unless John Calvin and Martin Luther were communists, public schooling was not from communism. the reformers started the public schools in Germany, much to the Catholic "church's" chagrin. the reason the pope did not like the schools was because they undermined his ability to dictate what the Bible said to the people. the actual reformation might have started with the preachers, but the schooling system boosted the Reformation much more than any preacher could ever do.

PS to mr pooeypants, most of the biological theories that were thought up by evolutionists make no sense anyways, because they are based in something as subject to change as a burning building at the start of a hurricane. what happens when you knock a pillar from under a roof? last I checked, the roof would fall in. my Cornerstone has never changed, and He will never change.

[Jack]

if every animal were to have the same origin and arrived here through the same process of natural selection

As long as you continue to post nonsense like this, I for one will never believe that you ever studied, or understood, evolution.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood As long as you continue to post nonsense like this, I for one will never believe that you ever studied, or understood, evolution.

from crossreferencing sites, I have noticed that the only two things that remain the same are natural selection and random mutation, both of which happen to a certain degree. IE: natural selection tends to place darker skinned people closer to the equator and fair skinned people in the north, for the most part. this does not mean that a fair skinned person won't travel south or a dark skinned person won't travel north, as that is a matter of choice, free will, or whatever you want to call it. the problem with evolution is, if it is true, the following things are also true, according to William Provine of Cornell University:
there is no evidence for God
there is no life after death
there is no absolute foundation for right or wrong
there is no ultimate meaning for life
there is no free will
sounds kind of desolate, doesnt it. in this life, right and wrong are all about how you FEEL. if you ask someone what they think of stealing, you get the response "I FEEL it is wrong". in the realm of philosophy, evolution is entirely lacking in this realm. however, as a philosophy, Christianity is unmovable, steady, and unchanging. our base for rules is in the Bible, and the main hook is in the Ten Commandments. I can no more truthfully say that God does not exist than I can pick up a building and carry it to town with me.