Jump to content


Some Questions


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#81 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 March 2010 - 04:20 PM

This is not correct. Firstly it should read "if it is repeatable and supported by accepted methodology (not theories, huge difference) we will accept your ideas for publication. This DOES NOT necessarily mean it is accepted by the scientific community. There are disputes within the scientific community regarding how to INTERPRET the published scientific data. In this aspect science and religion is similar. Religious people sometimes even kill each other over such disputes, while the scientific disputes seldom starts wars.


Is macro-evo observable and testable?
Is it not accepted by the peer review as being both even though no one has ever seen it?
Is not the excuse that if micro can happen so can macro?

So no repeatable test is required. If your idea agrees with current accepted views, and the scientific community, you hit the jackpot. If not it won't even get to first base.

Bad analogy. The conformance is NOT on the theories, but on the process of establishing the theories.


Name one person who has challenged any main established theory, and did this in public that has not had their reputation effected negatively?

Creation science is like a soccer player using his hands, not understanding why he is expelled from the game.


It's because of two things. Because science will not investigate anything supernatural, without bias and prejudice, it's automatically rejected. And because science does not allow God to be talked about in their circles, God and His followers are rejected.

So science is like playing a soccer game where one side gets to break the rules while the other side get penalized for those same rules.

Your analogy would hold more water if it was used to support that you need to have A RELIGIOUS FAITH, but not necessarily THE RELIGIOUS FAITH.

View Post


Perfect example is the acceptance of TE in science but the rejection of anyone who does not allow evolution to control what they believe in their religious faith. Nice try.

#82 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:33 AM

Is macro-evo observable and testable?
Is it not accepted by the peer review as being both even though no one has ever seen it?
Is not the excuse that if micro can happen so can macro?

So no repeatable test is required. If your idea agrees with current accepted views, and the scientific community, you hit the jackpot. If not it won't even get to first base.

I would suggest you read the book "The Golem, what you should know about science" which discusses this very topic of science disputes at the frontier and puts the argument in perspective.

Name one person who has challenged any main established theory, and did this in public that has not had their reputation effected negatively?

Easy! Albert Einstein. See especially page 43 and 44

It's because of two things. Because science will not investigate anything supernatural, without bias and prejudice, it's automatically rejected.´

Of course! The supernatural is not observable. Not only is it not even on the field but it does not even know where the field is.

And because science does not allow God to be talked about in their circles, God and His followers are rejected.

Non sequitur.

So science is like playing a soccer game where one side gets to break the rules while the other side get penalized for those same rules.
Perfect example is the acceptance of TE in science but the rejection of anyone who does not allow evolution to control what they believe in their religious faith. Nice try.

View Post

Umm, Who is doing that? What I don't like is when people show their faithbased non-scientific BS down children's throats. The focus of science is the observable universe and the focus of religion is the unobservable. Get a grip...

#83 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 05 March 2010 - 01:53 AM

Of course! The supernatural is not observable. Not only is it not even on the field  but it does not even know where the field is.


I don't want to divert this thread into something it didn't start with, but I wanted to cut in here and state that they can indeed be observable. I'm one of those that can attest to that in my own life.

#84 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 05 March 2010 - 05:46 AM

I don't want to divert this thread into something it didn't start with, but I wanted to cut in here and state that they can indeed be observable. I'm one of those that can attest to that in my own life.

View Post

You probably can do that, and I neither can nor will refute your personal experiences. However, what needs to be defined here is the distinction between the supernatural and the observed effects of the supernatural.

What science deals with is observed effects of whatever causes. And yes there is a bias from the scientific community to at first fit it into current knowedge. If it fits it is another example of a known and explained feature of nature. If it does not fit another bias comes into place. This bias is that rather than saying that it is effects of the supernatural, the scientific community jumps into CHANGING the theories of how the features of nature are. When these two primary options are not sufficient explanations are up for grabs. Here the supernatural has a place, maybe.

Now lets contrast the bias in the previous section with the bias creationists display. The supernatural is IN SOME ARBITRARY CASES the cause for observed effects, but only so when the observed effects fit a part of scientific theory they don't like. This bias is on a totally different scale.

The scienitific bias is that science works and should be used primarily to explain what happens in nature.

#85 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 March 2010 - 05:02 PM

If you cannot see the implications of the second law on the sentence immediately above, then you are not qualified to continue this conversation. I don't want that. I want you to reply with something that challenges what I've said. However, simply challenging with a failure to see the obvious is wasting our time.

View Post



I'm qualified enough. I asked you to use the math of the 2nd law to show me a problem with evolution. Since you haven't done that I can only assume you don't understand the math and by extension the 2nd law.

Name one person who has challenged any main established theory, and did this in public that has not had their reputation effected negatively?


Ike it has been done in physics repeatedly. Newtonian mechanics was accepted for over 100 years. Einstein challenged them and showed they didn't work everywhere.

#86 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 March 2010 - 07:16 PM

I am not changing scripture...

NIV: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

NASB: "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water.."

ESV: "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water..."

You are interpreting your KJV as saying the heavens were already old, when it is actually saying that the heavens existed long ago (indicating a place in time...not age).

Peace

View Post

'Long ago' is relative. There is no way to get an age by 'long ago.' Four thousand years may have seemed 'long ago' to some. It's like seeing the 'ancient' pyramids. To standard geology they are not ancient, but to a layman whose average life span is 75 years they are ancient.

There is evidence of water covering much of the earth. We are told by geology that tectonic uplift and receding oceans are the reason. But the none of the evidence can contradict this verse that the "earth was formed out of the water and by water." So this prediction was on the table long before modern geology came along and gave explanation for the more recently found data.

#87 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 06 March 2010 - 11:00 PM

'Long ago' is relative.  There is no way to get an age by 'long ago.'  Four thousand years may have seemed 'long ago' to some.  It's like seeing the 'ancient' pyramids.  To standard geology they are not ancient, but to a layman whose average life span is 75 years they are ancient.

There is evidence of water covering much of the earth.  We are told by geology that tectonic uplift and receding oceans are the reason.  But the none of the evidence can contradict this verse that the "earth was formed out of the water and by water."  So this prediction was on the table long before modern geology came along and gave explanation for the more recently found data.

View Post


AFJ,

You are missing Ikester'original point...he was inferring that 'of old' implied that the heavens were already made to be or appear 'ancient' at the point of creation...not how long ago they were made.

God admits that during creation He did not use time to age the matter in which He used to create the earth.



Peace

#88 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 07 March 2010 - 05:23 PM

I'm qualified enough.  I asked you to use the math of the 2nd law to show me a problem with evolution.  Since you haven't done that I can only assume you don't understand the math and by extension the 2nd law.

View Post

No, you aren't qualified. If you were, you could answer the simple questions that anyone could understand regardless of their knowledge of math.

Things change. When they do, we can account for the energy it takes to change. (do you doubt it takes energy for things to change?)

Even moreso, when things change in a specific way, it takes even more energy because more work is being done. For instance, when we find a granite rock sticking out of the desert sand where there was not a rock previously, it took a certain amount of energy to get it there. However, if we find an obelisk of the same size in the desert, it would have taken more energy to get it there because it would have required machines in order to be. (or maybe you think this isn't true? Maybe you have some math to show how this isn't true?)

Now that we're beyond that.  Energy is an integral part of chemical reactions.  UV light can separate a chlorine molecule into two chlorine free radicals which then go hunting for methyl groups where they're substituted giving you a chloromethyl hydrocarbon and hydrochloric acid.  The energy isn't directed.  All you have is chemistry.  BTW, I'm sorry to all you chemists out there for mangling organic chemistry so badly.

All the formation of DNA is is chemistry.  It's been explain by chemistry multiple times.

Now how is this a 2nd law problem???  The 2nd law governs energy and how much of it can be used for work or lost as heat.  There are mathematical formalisms in place here.  Can you apply them to evolution???

Your first example of undirected energy is a granite rock in the desert. The second example of the formation of DNA is the obelisk (machines are a tip-off).

If all there were, were natural processes, all we would have is the first example because there is no energy to spare for the second example.

If you cannot see the implications of the second law on the sentence immediately above, then you are not qualified to continue this conversation. I don't want that. I want you to reply with something that challenges what I've said. However, simply challenging with a failure to see the obvious is wasting our time.

#89 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2010 - 05:46 PM

No, you aren't qualified. If you were, you could answer the simple questions that anyone could understand regardless of their knowledge of math.

Things change. When they do, we can account for the energy it takes to change. (do you doubt it takes energy for things to change?)

Even moreso, when things change in a specific way, it takes even more energy because more work is being done. For instance, when we find a granite rock sticking out of the desert sand where there was not a rock previously, it took a certain amount of energy to get it there. However, if we find an obelisk of the same size in the desert, it would have taken more energy to get it there because it would have required machines in order to be. (or maybe you think this isn't true? Maybe you have some math to show how this isn't true?)
Your first example of undirected energy is a granite rock in the desert. The second example of the formation of DNA is the obelisk (machines are a tip-off).

If all there were, were natural processes, all we would have is the first example because there is no energy to spare for the second example.

If you cannot see the implications of the second law on the sentence immediately above, then you are not qualified to continue this conversation. I don't want that. I want you to reply with something that challenges what I've said. However, simply challenging with a failure to see the obvious is wasting our time.

View Post



Can you or can you not show me using the math of the 2nd law how this is a problem???

#90 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 March 2010 - 08:45 AM

Can you or can you not show me using the math of the 2nd law how this is a problem???

View Post

Here are some simple claims you can respond to. The ironic thing is that you can bring math into the discussion anytime you want. Please note the second bolded statement.

No, you aren't qualified. If you were, you could answer the simple questions that anyone could understand regardless of their knowledge of math.

Things change. When they do, we can account for the energy it takes to change. (do you doubt it takes energy for things to change?)

Even moreso, when things change in a specific way, it takes even more energy because more work is being done. For instance, when we find a granite rock sticking out of the desert sand where there was not a rock previously, it took a certain amount of energy to get it there. However, if we find an obelisk of the same size in the desert, it would have taken more energy to get it there because it would have required machines in order to be. (or maybe you think this isn't true? Maybe you have some math to show how this isn't true?)
Your first example of undirected energy is a granite rock in the desert. The second example of the formation of DNA is the obelisk (machines are a tip-off).

If all there were, were natural processes, all we would have is the first example because there is no energy to spare for the second example.

If you cannot see the implications of the second law on the sentence immediately above, then you are not qualified to continue this conversation. I don't want that. I want you to reply with something that challenges what I've said. However, simply challenging with a failure to see the obvious is wasting our time.

#91 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:03 PM

Here are some simple claims you can respond to. The ironic thing is that you can bring math into the discussion anytime you want. Please note the second bolded statement.

No, you aren't qualified. If you were, you could answer the simple questions that anyone could understand regardless of their knowledge of math.

Things change. When they do, we can account for the energy it takes to change. (do you doubt it takes energy for things to change?)

Even moreso, when things change in a specific way, it takes even more energy because more work is being done. For instance, when we find a granite rock sticking out of the desert sand where there was not a rock previously, it took a certain amount of energy to get it there. However, if we find an obelisk of the same size in the desert, it would have taken more energy to get it there because it would have required machines in order to be. (or maybe you think this isn't true? Maybe you have some math to show how this isn't true?)
Your first example of undirected energy is a granite rock in the desert. The second example of the formation of DNA is the obelisk (machines are a tip-off).

If all there were, were natural processes, all we would have is the first example because there is no energy to spare for the second example.

If you cannot see the implications of the second law on the sentence immediately above, then you are not qualified to continue this conversation. I don't want that. I want you to reply with something that challenges what I've said. However, simply challenging with a failure to see the obvious is wasting our time.

View Post


I can't demonstrate how the math works on evolution because I'm saying the 2nd law doesn't apply. You can apply thermodynamics to physics(not applicable) or to chemistry(which I already used to demonstrated your faulty logic).

#92 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 12 March 2010 - 07:33 PM

I can't demonstrate how the math works on evolution because I'm saying the 2nd law doesn't apply.

View Post

The 2nd law always applies. Is chemistry involved with biological evolution?

You can apply thermodynamics to physics(not applicable) or to chemistry

Bingo!

(which I already used to demonstrated your faulty logic).

This is new. What post did this happen in?

#93 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2010 - 07:02 PM

The 2nd law always applies. Is chemistry involved with biological evolution?
Bingo!
This is new. What post did this happen in?

View Post


There might be underlying chemical concepts in biology, but I already explained to you how "energy doesn't have to be directed" as you keep saying. I'm going to assume you just don't have the requisite knowledge of thermo or math to explain just what the problem is and call it quits here.

#94 Guest_DNAunion_*

Guest_DNAunion_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2010 - 08:47 PM

I can't demonstrate how the math works on evolution because I'm saying the 2nd law doesn't apply.


The 2nd law always applies. Is chemistry involved with biological evolution?


Chemistry is involved in all biology, including development.

So would also claim that your develoment from a simple, single-cell zygote into a complex adult human, with some 100 trillion cells, of some 200 different types, comprising various organ systems, organs, and tissues, violates the second law of thermodynamics? Why or why not?

#95 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:42 AM

There might be underlying chemical concepts in biology, but I already explained to you how "energy doesn't have to be directed" as you keep saying.

You've made the claim that energy doesn't have to be directed to create the information on information carrying media, but you've neither explained or demonstrated how it could happen. I, OTOH, have given you an example, which you have not refuted.

I'm going to assume you just don't have the requisite knowledge of thermo or math to explain just what the problem is and call it quits here.

View Post

Good for you. It wasn't going well for you anyway.

#96 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 22 March 2010 - 07:44 AM

Chemistry is involved in all biology, including development.

So would also claim that your develoment from a simple, single-cell zygote into a complex adult human, with some 100 trillion cells, of some 200 different types, comprising various organ systems, organs, and tissues, violates the second law of thermodynamics?  Why or why not?

View Post

Too bad you are gone. If anyone else wants to take up DNAU's cause is free to do so.

We have machines that direct the energy to carry on life and reproduce it according to the information carrying media we produce.

#97 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 March 2010 - 08:14 AM

I can't demonstrate how the math works on evolution because I'm saying the 2nd law doesn't apply.  You can apply thermodynamics to physics(not applicable) or to chemistry(which I already used to demonstrated your faulty logic).

View Post


I don't understand. Are you saying the 2nd law doesn't apply to physics and chemistry?

Because if you are that is a very foolish statement. You need to take a class in physical chemistry.

Entropy is expressed in the chemical equilibrium constant Keq.

Question, if you find a dead body do you put him in the oven or freezer to stop decay? After all if you are in an open system the more heat you apply the more it will be able to able to resist entropy, or even make improvements - right?

Wrong, we put a body in the freezer to keep it preserved. Heat exacerbates the decaying process. Why, because big molecules want to degrade into smaller molecules based on chemical equilibrium and entropy.

Physics and Chemistry are the home of entropy and yes it applies to an open system. We have to account for entropy all the time in an open system. This is why evolution is dangerous, it teaches bad science.

#98 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2010 - 11:25 AM

I don't understand.  Are you saying the 2nd law doesn't apply to physics and chemistry?

View Post


I never said that once. I said it doesn't apply to biology, at least not in the sense that it has been applied thus far in this thread.

Because if you are that is a very foolish statement. You need to take a class in physical chemistry.

Entropy is expressed in the chemical equilibrium constant  Keq.

Question, if you find a dead body do you put him in the oven or freezer to stop decay?  After all if you are in an open system the more heat you apply the more it will be able to able to resist entropy, or even make improvements - right?

Wrong, we put a body in the freezer to keep it preserved.  Heat exacerbates the decaying process.  Why, because big molecules want to degrade into smaller molecules based on chemical equilibrium and entropy.

Physics and Chemistry are the home of entropy and yes it applies to an open system.  We have to account for entropy all the time in an open system.  This is why evolution is dangerous, it teaches bad science.

View Post



Evolution doesn't have anything to say about entropy. That's why I blew off Yorzhik. Entropy has been twisted , by atheists, creationists, and everything in between, to mean "disorder".

#99 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 22 March 2010 - 11:29 AM

I don't understand.  Are you saying the 2nd law doesn't apply to physics and chemistry?

Because if you are that is a very foolish statement. You need to take a class in physical chemistry.

Entropy is expressed in the chemical equilibrium constant  Keq.

Question, if you find a dead body do you put him in the oven or freezer to stop decay?  After all if you are in an open system the more heat you apply the more it will be able to able to resist entropy, or even make improvements - right?

Wrong, we put a body in the freezer to keep it preserved.  Heat exacerbates the decaying process.  Why, because big molecules want to degrade into smaller molecules based on chemical equilibrium and entropy.

Physics and Chemistry are the home of entropy and yes it applies to an open system.  We have to account for entropy all the time in an open system.  This is why evolution is dangerous, it teaches bad science.

View Post


It would be you sir that is teaching the bad science. With your blatant straw man argument leading the way. Of course we know that a dead body is only going to decompose if heat is applied to it. No one states that applying thermal energy to a dead system is going to produce less entropy. In fact, life is completely dependent on entropy to thrive and grow. What do you think happens when you eat? How do you think plants get their nourishment to grow?

#100 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 22 March 2010 - 01:32 PM

It would be you sir that is teaching the bad science.  With your blatant straw man argument leading the way.  Of course we know that a dead body is only going to decompose if heat is applied to it.  No one states that applying thermal energy to a dead system is going to produce less entropy.  In fact, life is completely dependent on entropy to thrive and grow.  What do you think happens when you eat?  How do you think plants get their nourishment to grow?

View Post



Talk about a strawman- wow.

I agree with what you say. Biochemisty accounts for entropy. Life overcomes entropy mostly because of the metabolism/photosynthesis. In other words we are processing energy through sophisticated equipment in directed ways.

Energy must be directed. The energy from the sun in not directed by itself.

The bad science sir, is stating that entropy is not relevant in chemistry and physics in an open system. That is hog wash.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users