Creationist Lies 666 apologies
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- TheTick0
You're asking Jesus what's wrong with him? Do you expect an answer?
Man that would make this real interesting...
- discipler0
End of discussion, kuz. You redefine a widely accepted scientific law and force fit it to say something that it does not. For one last time:
Left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
- Kuz0
decay and degradation is the subjective interpretation of a human world - of things rotting. At an atomic level, which we are talking about, decay and degradation has nothing to do with thermodynamics. Get that into your head will ya!!!!
- Kuz0
Discipler, if what you say is true, then explain this:
there is ample evidence for the existence of complicated, orderly molecules in outer space. They were formed without an organism’s assistance because no such organisms have been found associated with them in meteorites and, of course, none can thrive in the energetic conditions of outer space. The "automatic" formation of complicated, orderly substances both spontaneously and non-spontaneously is simply the consequence of normal chemical laws and the second law of thermodynamics. (The intense energy sources in space make possible non-spontaneous synthesis there.)
- TheTick0
tapping fingers on desk. Yawn. This argument is just sooo yesterday...
- mikotondria20
OK, Discipler...
You say that evolutionism opposes the 2nd law of thermodynamics because all systems tend toward a lower energy state and that over time this will result in the 'heat death' of the universe into a chaotic organised absolute zero state.It is a fallacy to conclude that the processes of evolution are incorrect because of this broader principle. The above aspect of the 2nd law is not violated by the appearance of complex, energy containing chemical species - for example if an xray hits a solution and that energy is stored within the resulting molecular structure, albeit temporarily, as we know that eventually it will release that energy and breakdown into its previous components.
It is not a violation to for this energy to be stored within the structure of a molecule for any length of time, that is within the 'tendency' aspect of the law.This being said, what is it ABOUT this aspect of the 2nd law that supports your argument that the natural processes of physics and chemistry cannot have resulted in living systems ?
What is your alternative hypothesis ?
You can argue about the 2nd law till we're all blue in the face, but what IS it that you are trying to illustrate ?
You didnt answer me last time either...
:P
- discipler0
Show me these "complicated, orderly molecules" from outer space. Where are they? What are their constituent compounds? How have they been confirmed from "outer space"?
- Kuz0
You're mixing two things together, i guess this is cos you maybe don't have the ability to understand certain things.
A car breaking down
a compounds "degrading"
Now your general thesis on the 2nd law, from what you've said, is implying they are both simply the same thing in terms of thermodynamics.
Now that is wholly false and misleading. If you throw or take away energy from a compound, a new more or less structured compound will form
If you throw energy at a car, it will explode.
All you have done, all you do, all your websites do, is try to show that these two metaphors are the same. Which is why you evoke things like "information". This is wholly dishonest. The "information" contained in the blue-prints of a car is fundamentally different to the "information" needed for atomst to bond together and form molecules.
Either you have a degree in linguistics and are deliberately trying to mislead people, or you should really understand how the words you are using are clouding your ability to think properly.
- Mimio0
Discipler, when a compound reaches thermostatis, it can do whatever ...react with other things combine etc.
- Kuz0
oh and to answer your question discipler, check dis :)
Cyanide compounds, formed from the elements of carbon and nitrogen, have been shown by spectroscopy to be prevalent in all comets, along with ice (spontaneously formed from hydrogen and oxygen). All cyanides are considerably higher in energy content than carbon and hydrogen and thus they must have been formed non-spontaneously thermodynamically.
- Kuz0
*sniff
i smell victory....
- discipler0
"what is it ABOUT this aspect of the 2nd law that supports your argument that the natural processes of physics and chemistry cannot have resulted in living systems ?"
------------------------------
Mikotondria - My issue is that Darwinian evolution states the opposite of this confirmed law by suggesting that irreducibly complex biochemical machines were somehow magically formed from their constituent particles to create something functional and living and that would ultimately become multicellular organisms. Yet science has demonstrated that mindless natural processes cannot make this happen. Biochemists have demonstrated this. And my point is that the 2nd law shows a tendency towards decay and disorder left to natural processes, NOT organization of particles into the super machine that is even a single cell (let alone the insane complexity of a single strand of DNA). There is no science to suggest mindless natural processes could do this. It's a mythical notion.
- discipler0
Such compounds do not constitute life, Kuz, they are part of the chemical and geological composition that ARE the comets, asteroids, etc... I'm talking about life. What you are speaking of is basic non-living particles.
So, sit back down, back there.
- Kuz0
give up punk!
1. Yet science has demonstrated that mindless natural processes cannot make this happen. Biochemists have demonstrated this. And my point is that the 2nd law shows a tendency towards decay and disorder left to natural processes,
Science has not demonstrated this, it is not for science to demonstrate this. Read what i wrote about your misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You dont have a leg to stand on. Just because it doesn't make sense to you that the life developed like this. That's notthing to do with science. Capice?
- mikotondria20
oh, and just to throw this in:
A crystal structure contains less energy than a chaotically organised state of the any given molecule..
It is more ordered but contains less energy and less information, and it has radiated this energy and information during its formation.
This being true, the tendency toward entropy must therefore be accompanied by an equal tendency towards order.
A human being is a more ordered and therefore less energetic collation than is its component parts of carbon dioxide, iron oxide etc, into which it ultimately degrades.
Therefore living systems do not violate any observed tendencies, God is just an idea created by a certain configuration of amino acids, and Discipler is left alone and soulless in an infinite blackness.
Everybody else is as they were, thank you.
- discipler0
You're wrong again, kuz. Again, learn:
- Kuz0
No discipler, such things are not life. Isn't life amazing? I think so.
All i was doing was showing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not have anything to do with creating or destroying chaos, degradation etc. STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
You always do this, do a merry little dance to avoid the issue.
Life maybe amazing that it formed from molecules. But the fundamental idea of "complexity" formation from spontaneity/non-spontaneity is not at all precluded by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therfore you cannot apply the seoncd law to the eventual formation of dna, cells, etc..., because for compounds to form in the first place, the 2nd law, in your interpretation is violated. Even tho, it is not, the 2nd law is never violated, just your misinterpretatoin.
- JazX0
*pokes head into thread like a wabbit out of his hole
*decides to go back to sleep with a nice orange carrot
- Kuz0
sorry discipler, i dont' have time for your stupid articles. They inevitably turn out to be stupid so i lost faith.
Say what you have in writing, or are you too much of a pussy? ;)
- bruised_blood0
jesus... would you two get a room and get it out of your systems?
The sexual tension in here is disrupting my photoshop.