Creationist Lies 666 apologies
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- JazX0
Speaking of Dinos, when I finalized the Geology/Paleontology aspect of my BS, I found a huge cluster of lithified/mineralized dinosaur eggs in Wyoming. Still got 'em. Of course they're nothing special, but pretty neat anyway.
- Kuz0
*slaps face
1. Wrong! The spread of energy leads to the inevitable depletion of the energy and hence breakdown and degridation.
LISTEN CAREFULLY - Depletion of energy (spreading out) is ONE thing DEGRADATION is quite another. The 2nd law is not a predictor of disorder or degradation or "messiness" - The second law states that energy tends not to be restricted to one or a few energy levels in atoms and molecules, but to be dispersed to as many such levels as possible – rephrased in homely terms involving molecules, "Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse". THAT IS ALL IT IS SAYING. An atom can lose energy and BECOME MORE STRUCTURALLY COMPLEX (Thereby destroying your information theory argument)
observe:
The simplest organic compounds, called alkanes and composed only of carbon and hydrogen, contain portions or sections with one carbon atom holding two or three hydrogen atoms. Spectroscopic evidence for these characteristic alkane sections has been found throughout space. Alkanes with two to five carbon atoms joined to one another (and hydrogens attached to each carbon) are all lesser in energy than their elements. Therefore, the second law says irrefutably that they could be formed spontaneously from carbon and hydrogen with the net evolution of energy. Their structural pattern is not vastly complex but it is far more so than that of individual elements.
- mrdobolina0
that is cool.
- skt0
Do I not get an answer discipler? Or was the link to that site it?
- discipler0
Big surprise, I disagree. The collection of books penned by different authors which constitutes the Bible is based on an abundance of harmonizing manuscripts which attest to it's consistansy and reliability. It has survived banning attempts, burning attempts, censorship of all forms and remains a best seller today and changes countless lives. This does not change those who would twist it "to their own destruction". I do not believe Christianity is religion, it's a relationship with a living Savior - another discussion.
Whether you guys like it or not, the latest scientific discoveries about the complexity of the tiny machines that are the building blocks of life, demonstrate an irreducible complexity that is not consistent with what Darwinists have believed for these short 150 years or so. It's time to upgrade and look at what science is actually observing. Intelligent Design and Creationism is not about illegitimately imposing the dictates of faith upon science, but about raising rational objections to proposed Darwinian explanations of the biological world. It's about observing the latest scientific evidence, namely regarding biochemical machines.
Finally, I challenge you to go and research the definition of the Second Law of thermodynamics and then show me how it is not saying what I (and countless other scientists) are saying.
- mrdobolina0
blah blah blah
repeat
- Jaline0
.
- Anarchitect0
DUDE, SCHIAVO WAS BRAINDEAD!
- TheTick0
Yeah Mimo we noticed. That's his schtick. That's ID's schtick.
They are masters of rhetoric in a Socratic way. Brilliant actually. Self delusional as well, but brilliant.
Honk if you love science!
- discipler0
You've demonstrated nothing but holes in your position, kuz. And not once satisfactorily responded to the facts I refuted you with.
Transitional fossils? I hope you eat a good breakfast. Lot's of protein. You'll need it. :)
- skt0
haha, skt, easy now, you're entering into the nonsensical Kantian "why would a good god..." crap. ;)
Kuz
(Jun 16 05, 08:28)Thats not really the point i was making.
Is it not true that evolution of viruses can be measered over a relatively small amount of time. Unlike mammals etc..
Now if we can see them evolve in order to overcome obstacles (penicilin etc) in a short space of time, why shouldn't the same be true of insects, birds, animals over much greater timespans?
Oh and is mutation (if it helps you to survive) not the same as evolution discipler?
- TheTick0
How does your definition of the Bible differ form that of the vedas of Hinduism (an older text) or the Koran (albeit a younger text)..countless authors, consistency of material, survived bannings, burnings, etc...
Why is the Bible so special?
- Kuz0
2. Correct. Heat. Energy and tendency toward randomness and degridation. Everything I (scientists!) have said is consistent.
No no no no. Now you are confusing to very different ideas. Do you understand the difference between spontaneous and non-spontaneous formation of complexity. Earth at its early history had masses amount of radiation energy pumping into these molecules, causing reactions.
observe:
In contrast, those quite complicated alkanes with six or more joined carbon atoms in their molecules have greater energy within them than the elements from which they are composed. Thus, their formation would require the input of energy from outside themselves – intensely powerful ultraviolet or even x-rays, each of which are plentiful in many parts of the universe. Syntheses of these longer alkanes would be a process that is thermodynamically non-spontaneous. Spectroscopic evidence is not able to determine the number of carbon atoms in the total alkanes whose fragments are clearly present in space. However, spontaneously or non-spontaneously formed, they are complex and they are out there!
see?
- TheTick0
Jesus built my hotrod by the way...
- mrdobolina0
like you guys are some scientists and shit.
- Kuz0
3. Complete and utter argument from silence that flies in the face of confirmed scientific findings. TIME does not matter. A trillion years would not produc
What do you mean argument of silence? I was simply stating that this wasn't an "act" but a process of billion years. If you want to get into the feasibility of this process, then thats a whole difference argument.
- Kuz0
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. This means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.
Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.
Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.
- JazX0
Muse - Thoughts Of A Dying Atheist: http://www.machnewmedia.com/mp3/…
- Kuz0
your assertation that arguments are full of wholse prove nothing but your on obstinancy. Not one single "hole" have you pointed out, nor one objection that i haven't sufficiently challenged that did not draw either silence from you or a reiteration of a mute point. But i guess you have to be childish and say "nah nah, i haven't learnt anything! so there!"
ha.
- yarsrevenge0
so you say you are.