Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- Prev0
700
- ********0
Seriously, those places have got 2nd law COMPLETELY wrong!! oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- discipler0
ignored.
- exador10
I've just been reading 'the science of discworld' which is basically much like something by Hawking, or Carl Sagan...but has a little disc-world story in between chapters...
anyhow, the science text part of the book is quite amazing...and it absolutely skewers religous fanatics and their 'certainty' regarding creationism...very very good book...totally recommend it..even for you discipler... :)
i know how you feel about the subject, but man..it really is a great book,by the way...i read that certainty artlice on Time mags site..
i thought it was kind of baloney..
;)
- discipler0
and show that article to your friend of a friend of a friend, etc...
- ********0
i'm showing that artcile to you!!!! to correct your gross misinformation!
- jakeyj0
Dear thread,
why won't you die!?
ps. is it natural selection?
- ********0
Kes...man..calm down...things have gotten heated here, but we've maintained for a few days. You had some valid things to say..don't go off into all caps land so quick...
Cool head, hot keyboard I always say...
Discipler if he plays nice take him off ignore...
- discipler0
No, Kus, I'm showing you the trueorigins article for you show to your Geneticist friend of a friend, etc... And be sure to read the PHD's correspondence on that article in the upper right hand corner.
- ********0
no no, i'm excited! i found new information on the second law of thermodynamics he NEEDS to know!!!
gosh! this changes EVERYTHING!
- discipler0
Kes, is not saying valid things. He's quoting out-dated information which has been answered already and can't communicate without being insulting and childish.
- discipler0
Old information that has been answered effectively, doesn't change a thing.
- ********0
but that's what you are doing discipler!!!
omg! that HAS not been answered!!!
listen...
"ok first, the law is actually the relation between ENTHALPY and ENTROPY, and applying this to evolution is simply an analogy used by many lecturers to give first year biologists an idea that there is a constant battle between the need to evolve fast enough to adapt to minute changes in environmental circumstance, whilst also preventing any evolution from becoming chaotic and causing the organism to evolve beyond its environment such that it loses it's niche and the enviroment provides no support."
see??? THIS is why that trueorigins article you posted is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED!!
YOWZA!
- ********0
and also -
recent studies and very complex mathematical modelling and analysis have shown that the universe is, in fact, expanding, not decaying (yet - although they expect this to start happening in hundereds of billions of years from now). Not that this has any bearing whatsoever on evolution. Observe the number of bacteria and other organisms that start to grow AND MULTIPLY on a dead or dying body, for instance. In fact decay and detrimental circumstance are precisely the environmentally stressful conditions that SELECT FOR those organisms that have undergone evolution. eg. MRSA. lots of antibiotic overuse. bad for the bacteria. only those that have developed resistance survive.
this is not outdated! this is from a geneticist VERY RECENTLY!!
OMG!
- ********0
so you see? 2nd law of thermodynamics actually is part of evolution!
oh my fuckin god!
- ********0
The value of the second law of thermodynamics is that it quantitatively describes the energetic aspects of the chemical elements and the compounds they form. The chemical potential energy (the enthalpy of formation) that is bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is less than that in their elements. Thus, energetically , the second law says that the majority of compounds now known could spontaneously form from the corresponding elements. In complete contrast, watches or cars are not lower in thermodynamic energy than the total energy of their individual components. Therefore, the second law says that it is totally inappropriate to compare them with the behavior of chemical compounds and elements.
- kld0
I guess you have to wake pretty early in the morrning to be the 666th poster in this thread.
Farkers.
- ********0
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.
Many kinds of molecules can strike other kinds very violently and produce totally new types of molecules – another mode of formation of new complex ordered structures due to the same innate nature of atoms to form strong bonds and spread out energy to the surroundings. Amino acids when simply melted with other amino acids (to make them move more rapidly) form huge new compounds. These are NOT useful or valuable proteins. The process simply illustrates the probability of the existence of complex gigantic substances in nature. Though not proteins, they are "proteinoid" in that they have hundreds to thousands of amino acid units firmly joined in the same kind of bonds that hold proteins together.
A simple example of the spontaneous behavior of elements is the reaction of hydrogen gas with oxygen (that was tragically illustrated when the Hindenburg dirigible burned in 1937). Hydrogen atoms have such a great inherent tendency to form strong bonds with oxygen to yield water that a small energy of activation, in the form of a spark affecting only a relatively few molecules, causes the two substances to start to react, resulting in an enormous evolution of energy. This is exactly as the second law predicts: some of the energy in hydrogen and oxygen tends to be spread out when the lesser-energetic water is formed. Yet, water is more complex than the simple elements and its atoms are arranged in an exact geometric pattern.
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements.
- ********0
see discpler? see??!!
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.
- ********0
This thread is unstoppable. It devours whole continents in it's maw.
It is a force of nature. Whether that is nature guided by science or god is but nought for us to know...
A tiny Tick in a vast universe..