• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
While it is certain the sandcastle didn't "self-assemble", it is a randomly built sandcastle on a random beach made of random particles of sand.
You keep using that word, but it is clear you have no idea what it means.

Let me help:

It is certain the sandcastle didn't self-assemble. It is a designed sandcastle on a chosen beach made of arbitrarily sourced sand.

No, YOU (and other creationists) rule out random chance. However, unlike shuffling cards, evolution isn't as random as creationist would like everyone to believe.
So, are you ruling out randomness?

Your comments are akin to saying: "The odds are so incredible it couldn't have happened by chance, therefore, thedeityIspecialpleadedintoexistencedidit!!!"
Nope. Evidence, remember? We know you hate it.

You don't know much about statistics, do you?
:rotfl:

In the U.S.A. there is a lottery game called "Powerball". The odds of winning are approximately 1 in 292 million (69 balls taken 5 at a time and 26 balls taken one at a time, if you want to figure out the exact odds), yet, through the miracle of chance, someone ALWAYS wins... always.
Oh, you want to change the illustration now?

We know why.

While the odds of shuffling a deck of cards until they are in any specific order are incredibly long, given enough creationists shuffling decks of card, just like "Powerball", while hard for creationists to comprehend, someone will eventually get it right.

Nope. Never.

There's a key difference you're missing.

Think about it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A universe where order appears out of natural processes.

We live in a universe subject to entropy, which is the exact opposite of what I have quoted you saying. This is the third or fourth major mistake you've made trying to describe scientific phenomena in the past few weeks. Predictions aren't the be all and end all. Energy does not need to go to heat.

The problem isn't that you keep getting things wrong; it's that you won't admit your errors.

Darwinists like saying that entropy can be overcome locally, but when asked how this happens in the case of evolution, they use their theory as evidence.

Physical laws trump your ideas.

Sorry.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Some insight into the way nature adapts to physical forces:]

It requires some high school-level math, so Stipe won't get it, but it's pretty accessible to the average person.
It's telling that you'll post book covers, but when it comes to discussing the evidence, your ignorance is exposed time and time again.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
While it is certain the sandcastle didn't "self-assemble", it is a randomly built sandcastle on a random beach made of random particles of sand.
You keep using that word, but it is clear you have no idea what it means.
Let me help:
It is certain the sandcastle didn't self-assemble. It is a designed sandcastle on a chosen beach made of arbitrarily sourced sand.
Sandcastles can be randomly “assembled”, no design, no purpose. The beach is random as well. Perhaps you need a better analogy.

No, YOU (and other creationists) rule out random chance. However, unlike shuffling cards, evolution isn't as random as creationist would like everyone to believe.
So, are you ruling out randomness?
Instead of making things up you should read what is said.

No Your comments are akin to saying: "The odds are so incredible it couldn't have happened by chance, therefore, thedeityIspecialpleadedintoexistencedidit!!!"
Nope. Evidence, remember? We know you hate it.
You keep using that word, but it is clear you have no idea what it means.

You don't know much about statistics, do you?
Thanks for admitting you don’t understand statistics.

In the U.S.A. there is a lottery game called "Powerball". The odds of winning are approximately 1 in 292 million (69 balls taken 5 at a time and 26 balls taken one at a time, if you want to figure out the exact odds), yet, through the miracle of chance, someone ALWAYS wins... always.
Oh, you want to change the illustration now?
I’ve changed nothing. Why do people win the lottery if it is completely random chance?

We know why.
We? Do you have a gerbil up your butt… again?

While the odds of shuffling a deck of cards until they are in any specific order are incredibly long, given enough creationists shuffling decks of card, just like "Powerball", while hard for creationists to comprehend, someone will eventually get it right.
Nope. Never.
Really? No one EVER wins “Powerball”… EVER?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian suggests:
It requires some high school-level math, so Stipe won't get it, but it's pretty accessible to the average person.

It's telling that you'll post book covers,

Sorry, Stipe. The texts aren't on line. You'll have to just get a copy and read it, if you want to learn.

If you actually did that, you'd figure out why you don't get entropy.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Well, sure it's an extrapolation (consequence) of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT}, just like trigonometric functions can be manipulated to extrapolate other trigonometric functions or the energy - matter equivalence of E=mc2 to m = E/c2. Please explain in detail, using your deep knowledge of philosophy, er, thermodynamics, what's not true about it?
When and where did Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity change from a theory to a law?
Who made that decision?
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
While it is certain the sandcastle didn't "self-assemble", it is a randomly built sandcastle on a random beach made of random particles of sand.
Sandcastles can be randomly “assembled”, no design, no purpose. The beach is random as well. Perhaps you need a better analogy.
If my kid said something that dumb, they would get an allegorical whack upside the head.
Perhaps you should be a little more honest and quote in context and consider how deceitful you are before accusing someone else.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Well, sure it's an extrapolation (consequence) of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT}, just like trigonometric functions can be manipulated to extrapolate other trigonometric functions or the energy - matter equivalence of E=mc2 to m = E/c2. Please explain in detail, using your deep knowledge of philosophy, er, thermodynamics, what's not true about it?
When and where did Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity change from a theory to a law?

Who made that decision?
Perhaps you'd do better learning the difference between a scientific theory and a creationist theory and then actually address the point instead of creating non-sequiturs and straw men.

You really ARE stupid-on-steroids.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian chuckles:
So you look at some kind of order and are stunned to find that God is powerful enough to make a universe where order appears out of natural processes. Christians have always realized this. Creationists are scared of a God that powerful.

We live in a universe subject to entropy

Remember, you don't know what "entropy" is. Have you decided yet whether a drop of water or a frozen crystal of water has more entropy? You're still confusing entropy and disorder.

which is the exact opposite of what I have quoted you saying.

This morning, I noted the daffodils are blooming. And yet they came from a lump of tissue with no bright colors or elaborate shapes. Daffodils never read about creationism, so they don't know that they are impossible.

Predictions aren't the be all and end all.

As you learned, predictions are all that matters in science:
In science, an educated guess about the cause of a natural phenomenon is called a hypothesis. It's essential that hypotheses be testable and falsifiable, meaning they can be tested and different results will ensue depending on whether the hypothesis is true or false. In other words, a hypothesis should make predictions that will hold true if the hypothesis itself is true. A testable prediction can be verified through experiment
https://sciencing.com/testable-prediction-8646215.html

Energy does not need to go to heat.

But you couldn't find an exception. Why do you think they call it "thermodynamics", Stipe?

Darwinists like saying that entropy can be overcome locally, but when asked how this happens...[/QUOTE]

They point out things like plants emerging from seed, the complex structure of hurricanes developing as a result of energy inputs from the Sun, and so on.

in the case of evolution, they use their theory as evidence.

No one believes that. Even you don't believe it, Stipe. As you know, scientists point to observed evolution, the fossil record, gentics, and many other things as evidence. As you know, even honest creationists admit the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution.

I know you think "entropy" is a silver bullet that will kill science, but physical laws trump your ideas. You still can't get your head around the idea that entropy is not the opposite of complexity.

Sorry.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Blablaman warbles:
Remember, you don't know what "entropy" is.

entropy (noun):
1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"

2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

You're still confusing entropy and disorder.
You're still mind-numbingly stupid.

Have you decided yet whether a drop of water or a frozen crystal of water has more entropy?
Irrelevant, of course. The law is that entropy increases. Therefore, if you leave either of those things alone, they will tend toward disorder.

We know you hate reality.

This morning, I noted the daffodils are blooming. And yet they came from a lump of tissue with no bright colors or elaborate shapes.
And we can explain somewhat the processes that allow for this local decrease in entropy. Fortunately, we do not use our assumptions as evidence in this explanation.

Predictions are all that matters in science.
:darwinsm:

In science, an educated guess about the cause of a natural phenomenon is called a hypothesis. It's essential that hypotheses be testable and falsifiable, meaning they can be tested and different results will ensue depending on whether the hypothesis is true or false. In other words, a hypothesis should make predictions that will hold true if the hypothesis itself is true. A testable prediction can be verified through experiment
Notice how your assertion is not upheld by the source you quote?

That should be a clue.

Also from your source:


Testing Predictions
All predictions should be testable, meaning it should be possible to design an experiment that would verify or invalidate the prediction.

Sounds like the practice of discarding ideas when they are falsified trumps a prediction.

Don't you hate it when your own source undermines your stupid assertion?

:chuckle:

But you couldn't find an exception.
:rotfl:

Only about six.

Boy, but are you stupid.

Why do you think they call it "thermodynamics"
To give you something to say that will ease your acute embarrassment. :chuckle:

No one believes that.
What you believe is irrelevant.

We ask you to describe how shining the sun on an organism leads to it gaining genetic information and you either dissemble — "what is information?" — or you use the logical fallacy of begging the question — "evolutiondidit!"

You bring up other examples of local decreases in entropy, but we can explain the mechanics of flowering or storms without saying "they flower" or "storms happen."

The challenge lies before you: Explain the process without using your assumptions as evidence.

Even you don't believe it.
:darwinsm:

"I don't like this tiger, he reads minds."

Scientists point to observed evolution, the fossil record, gentics, and many other things as evidence. As you know, even honest creationists admit the fossil record is strong evidence for evolution.
:rotfl:

I know you think "entropy" is a silver bullet that will kill science, but physical laws trump your ideas. You still can't get your head around the idea that entropy is not the opposite of complexity.Sorry.

:rotfl:

:mock: Blablablarian
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Perhaps you'd do better learning the difference between a scientific theory and a creationist theory and then actually address the point instead of creating non-sequiturs and straw men.

You really ARE stupid-on-steroids.
You asserted that the theory of special relativity was the first law of thermodynamics, but have no proof. :loser:
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Perhaps you'd do better learning the difference between a scientific theory and a creationist theory and then actually address the point instead of creating non-sequiturs and straw men.
You asserted that the theory of special relativity was the first law of thermodynamics, but have no proof.
I did no such thing and you can't quote one single post in which I do!!!! You really ARE stupid-on-steroids!!!!

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another but can be neither created nor destroyed.

The conservation of mass is an extrapolation (consequence) of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT). Just like trigonometric functions can be manipulated to extrapolate other trigonometric functions, E = mc2 can be manipulated to extrapolate m = E/c2 to obtain the mass - energy equivalence.

Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed
The conservation of energy is an absolute law, and yet it seems to fly in the face of things we observe every day. Sparks create a fire, which generates heat—manifest energy that wasn’t there before. A battery produces power. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion. Each of these situations, however, is simply a case of energy changing form. Even the seemingly paradoxical dark energy causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate, we will see, obeys this rule.

The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing.

Potential and kinetic energy are two of the most basic forms, familiar from high school physics class: Gravitational potential is the stored energy of a boulder pushed up a hill, poised to roll down. Kinetic energy is the energy of its motion when it starts rolling. The sum of these is called mechanical energy. The heat in a hot object is the mechanical energy of its atoms and molecules in motion. In the 19th century physicists realized that the heat produced by a moving machine was the machine’s gross mechanical energy converted into the microscopic mechanical energy of atoms. Chemical energy is another form of potential energy stored in molecular chemical bonds. It is this energy, stockpiled in your bodily cells, that allows you to run and jump. Other forms of energy include electromagnetic energy, or light, and nuclear energy—the potential energy of the nuclear forces in atoms. There are many more. Even mass is a form of energy, as Albert Einstein’s famous E = mc2 showed.

Fire is a conversion of chemical energy into thermal and electromagnetic energy via a chemical reaction that combines the molecules in fuel (wood, say) with oxygen from the air to create water and carbon dioxide. It releases energy in the form of heat and light. A battery converts chemical energy into electrical energy. A nuclear bomb converts nuclear energy into thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy.

As scientists have better understood the forms of energy, they have revealed new ways for energy to convert from one form to another. When physicists first formulated quantum theory they realized that an electron in an atom can jump from one energy level to another, giving off or absorbing light. In 1924 Niels Bohr, Hans Kramers, and John Slater proposed that these quantum jumps temporarily violated energy conservation. According to the physicists, each quantum jump would liberate or absorb energy, and only on average would energy be conserved.

Einstein objected fervently to the idea that quantum mechanics defied energy conservation. And it turns out he was right. After physicists refined quantum mechanics a few years later, scientists understood that although the energy of each electron might fluctuate in a probabilistic haze, the total energy of the electron and its radiation remained constant at every moment of the process. Energy was conserved.

Modern cosmology has offered up new riddles in energy conservation. We now know that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate—propelled by something scientists call dark energy. This is thought to be the intrinsic energy per cubic centimeter of empty space. But if the universe is a closed system with a finite amount of energy, how can it spawn more empty space, which must contain more intrinsic energy, without creating additional energy?

It turns out that in Einstein’s theory of general relativity, regions of space with positive energy actually push space outward. As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume. So even the expansion of the universe is controlled by the law of energy conservation.

There is significantly more to the FLoT than “the relationship between heat and work” and the mass - energy equivalence is integral (related/essential/fundamental) to it. Where do you think the “heat” comes from… thin air?

If you actually knew anything about physics/thermodynamics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you... again.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
When and where did Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity change from a theory to a law?
Who made that decision?

First, there are no deciders in science. A hypothesis becomes a theory when enough of its predictions have been validated by evidence.

Second, Einstein's theory of relativity remains a theory; there's no way to downgrade it to a law, since it both predicts and explains things. Laws only predict things, but do not explain them.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Stipe tries to use a dictionary for scientific terms:

entropy (noun):
1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
"the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"

2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Entropy is not “disorder”
Entropy change measures the dispersal of energy (at a specific temperature), i.e. qrev/T

* Energy dispersal; energy becoming spread out. In simple physico-chemical processes such as ideal gas expansion into a vacuum , ”spread out” describes the literal movement of energetic molecules throughout a greater volume than they occupied before the process. The final result is that their initial , comparatively localized, motional energy has become more dispersed in that final greater volume. . Such a spontaneous volume change is fundamentally related to macro entropy change by determining the reversible work (=-q) to compress the gas to its initial volume, RT ln (V2/V1) with the result being ΔS =R ln (V2/V1). On a molecular thermodynamic basis, gas expansion into a vacuum would be described in terms of microstates by the Boltzmann equation via:
ΔS = kB ln W2/W1
= kB ln [(V2 /V1 )N ]
= kBN ln V2 /V1
= R ln V2 /V1.
Thus, the amount of the spontaneous dispersion of molecules' energy in three-dimensional space is related to molecular thermodynamics, to a larger number of microstates, and measured by changes in entropy.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The initial statement above (about the movement of molecules into a larger volume as solely due to their motional energy) is only valid as a description of entropy change to high school students or non-scientists when there will not be any further discussion of entropy. Such a statement “smuggles in entropy change” wrote Norman C. Craig. I interpret this to be ‘smuggling’ because thermodynamic entropychange is not simply a matter of random molecular movement, but consists of two factors, not one. Entropy change is certainly enabled in chemistry by the motional energy of molecules (that can be can be increased by bond energy change in chemical reactions) but thermodynamic entropy is only actualized if the process itself (expansion, heating, mixing) makes accessible a larger number of microstates, a maximal Boltzmann probability at the specific temperature. [Information 'entropy' only has the latter factor of probability (as does the 'sigma entropy' of physics, σ = S/kB) This clearly distinguishes both from thermodynamic entropy.]

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_isnot_disorder.html


You're still mind-numbingly stupid.

One of us is. Have you figured out yet whether a drop of water or a crystal ice had more entropy? When you do, show us your numbers, Stipe.

Irrelevant, of course. The law is that entropy increases.

As you learned, my daffodils are demonstrating a reduction in entropy at this moment. So do hurricanes, ocean currents, reproducing bacteria, and many,many other things. All of this is a dense mystery to you, because you don't know what "entropy" is.

Therefore, if you leave either of those things alone, they will tend toward disorder.

I left my daffodils alone. And they are exhibiting an increase in order. If reality won't match your beliefs, it's time for you to make an accommodation.

We know you hate reality.

Barbarian explains:
All predictions should be testable, meaning it should be possible to design an experiment that would verify or invalidate the prediction.

Sounds like the practice of discarding ideas when they are falsified trumps a prediction.

Yep. Predictions are all that matter. If they're good ones,and are verified, then the hypothesis is a theory. If not, the hypothesis is scrapped and a new one is tried. You're starting to catch on, Stipe.

We ask you to describe how shining the sun on an organism leads to it gaining genetic information

As you learned, all new mutations increase information in a population. Would you like to see the numbers for that, Stipe?

Or are you confused how sunlight provides the energy for organisms to live and eventually to produce mutations?

and you either dissemble — "what is information?"

If you understood what "information" is, you'd have already figured out your issue.

You bring up other examples of local decreases in entropy

You just brought up mutations, which are another example. You're very confused about this issue.

but we can explain the mechanics of flowering or storms without saying "they flower" or "storms happen."

Just as we can explain the mechanics of evolution without saying "they evolve." The difference is, flowers don't scare you.

The challenge lies before you: Explain the process without using your assumptions as evidence.

As you see, mutations are no different than other natural phenomena. And as you already learned, all new mutations in a population increase information. Would you like me to show you again?
 
Top