# Overwhelming Number Of Scientists Believe In Evolution

346 replies to this topic

### #341 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,852 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 71
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 05 July 2015 - 08:36 AM

I always thought electricity was some weird stuff. I am thinking maybe someone expected those five volt power supplies to be additive like with batteries. If we put two batteries negative to positive we get double the volts--no problems.
Guess power supplies don't work that way. lol

When covering the part of physical science dealing with electricity, I explain if you can understand water flow thru a pipe, you can understand electricity thru a wire.  The power supplies could be used in exactly the way you claim if they don't share a common ground.  Basically, you could hook the -5v output of one supply to ground and the ground (positive side) of that supply to the ground (negative side) of the +5v supply.  You would then have your 10 v potential.  In the situation I had, their grounds were already connected to the circuit board.  Many semiconductor components are very polarity sensitive and will be "blown" almost instantly if the polarity is reversed.

On my wheel chair I have two twelve volt batteries which when put in series give me 24volts to run my DC motors on my electric wheel chair. I am thinking of getting another set of two and putting them in parallel and that will increase amp rating from 55 to 110 which will increase my range before needing to recharge.

I would strongly recommend hooking those batteries in series because you might well fry some of your components with the extra voltage.  Now, if you don't have any voltage sensitive components and would like your chair to accelerate like a dragster, it might be fun.  Back when slot cars were popular, I went to a place that had a scale 1/4 mile "dragstrip."  My car had a 1.5 volt motor and the track provided 12v.  The car ran the "quarter mile" in a little under two seconds with a scale speed of 700mph.  I'd love to take a car like that to the drag strip.

Your idea of hooking the batteries in parallel is exactly right... it will increase the total power available and extend your range considerably... but probably a little less than double for other reasons.

Using the water in a pipe analogy.... volts are electric potential energy.  Think of them as pressure.  If I double the pressure in a hose, I can get a lot more water thru it in the same amount of time... so water out of the hose will travel much farther.  On the other hand, amps are more like the total amount of water in the pipe.  The more gallons you have, the longer it takes to empty the tank.

### #342 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,852 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 71
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 05 July 2015 - 08:58 AM

Not different "Physics"....... different "Math".

Ya see:

MATH is IMMATERIAL...it's Abstract.

Physics is errr, "PHYSICAL".  The discipline seeks to "Explain" Phenomenon OBSERVED in the MATERIAL (Physical) World.

"Math" doesn't "explain" @ BEST it merely "describes".

Math isn't Physics just like Bread isn't a Sandwich.

Borrowing one of Enoch's arguments....

Physics deals with things like force (immaterial), energy (immaterial), velocity (immaterial), distance (immaterial), etc.   Try to paint force or energy or velocity or distance red and put them in a jar.

You can't do physics without math just like you can't have a sandwich without bread.

### #343 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,852 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 71
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 05 July 2015 - 09:48 AM

Great so energy can be positive or negative depending on where you measure it, (thus making it arbitrary since by using this logic all kinetic / GP energy could be deemed positive or negative depending on how you measure it)....

Potential energy is positive.  I'm not sure that "GP energy" is.

GP energy is gravitational potential, (since you can have elastic potential also)...

So you claim that potential energy is positive... Then claim that since chemical energy is potential that makes it negative?... Then claim that matter is positive energy... Yet claiming that chemical energy (aka matter) is negative..

My mistake.... it is kinetic energy that is positive.  Potential energy is negative.  Sometimes my proof reading leaves much to be desired.  We used to have a phrase for this.... I should get 15 lashes with a wet noodle.

Chemical energy may depend on exactly what we're talking about.  The energy contained in chemical bonds is potential energy and is therefore negative.  When we break those bonds, we release that potential energy then new bonds are formed which will change some of the released energy back to potential energy.   A good example is combustion.  We burn gasoline breaking the bonds that held hydrogen and carbon together releasing the potential energy of them converting it to kinetic (heat) energy.  Water and CO2 will then form which takes some of that released energy and stores it in new bonds.  The new bonds in the water and CO2 will have less potential energy than the original carbon-hydrogen bonds.  The difference is the energy released in the reaction that becomes available to push our cars down the road.  (How much is actually converted to motion of the car and how much becomes useless (entropy) is the result of a number of different factors.)

Note:  In all cases, exothermic reactions result in new bonds with a lower (total) potential energy.  Endothermic reactions can result in bonds with increased potential energy since those reactions absorb energy from their surroundings.  Atoms will tend to combine in a way that produces bonds with the least potential energy.

Ah so it does exist... So how can atheists claim that the universe can come from nothing... If you admit that the universe does exist, despite potentially having a SUM of zero energy then it WOULD need some form of creation event, since "that which begins to exist has a cause"...

So you've just conceded your point

Creationists also claim the universe came from nothing.  In fact, the creationist scientific journal was titled "Creation ex-nihilo" for years.  It was hilarious to me that creationists would argue the impossibility of the universe coming from nothing, then cite an article in a journal whose very title was "Creation from nothing."

Mainstream scientists do say there was "some form of creation event."    Our disagreement is not that a "creation event" took place.... it's what that event was and when it happened.

### #344 piasan

piasan

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 2,852 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Oklahoma
• Age: 71
• Christian
• Theistic Evolutionist
• Oklahoma

Posted 05 July 2015 - 10:28 AM

What is Energy?

"It is important to realize in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is"--- Richard P. Feynman (Nobel laureate Physics)

If you don't know what something is....then how on GOD'S GREEN EARTH can you add it up?

If I can define it, and quantify it, I can add it up.  Now, if you want to dispute whether or not energy exists I have a couple tests you could do....

Ok then let's use "Sand'.

Please define it....then quantify it, then...... Please provide the weight in kg's of the Total Amount of Sand in the Universe.....?  <---- And Please validate it.  Thanks

And I never stated or implied as to whether or not energy does or does not exist...I asked you to DEFINE IT!  It's often best to stick with the "Actual" argument and queries in discourse ; using the Parlance of our time, this is known as a Straw Man (Fallacy).

I'm not interested in playing your sophomoric word games and meeting your demands that have been deliberately set up in order to make it impossible to meet them.  If you don't know what energy is, look it up.  As some YEC here have said... don't expect me to do your homework for you.  To apply something from an earlier comment by you.... it's something any 5th grader can do.

My response was to your comment asking "If you don't know what something is .... then how on GOD'S GREEN EARTH can you add it up?"  The fact is that, we "add up" energy all the time and do so quite accurately and successfully.

What is Gravity?  Please EXPLAIN, don't "DESCRIBE"?

You want a definition?  Guess what .... a definition is a description.  I would be interested in knowing how one can EXPLAIN something without DESCRIBING it.

I noted you provided neither

Well, you told me not to provide a description of gravity and a definition is a description.... and I have no interest in playing semantic hair-splitting games with you.

ps. Are you gonna define Gravity and Energy @ some point or can we just call it a "Wrap" right here?

I don't know why I'm doing this, because the exercise is pointless, but I'll try.....Gravity is the attractive force between objects.  Now, do you want definitions of "attractive," "force," and "objects?"  How about a Clintonesque "what do you mean by 'is?'"

Energy - the capacity for doing work.

Next time, if you don't know what a term means, look it up yourself.  I will do no more of your homework for you.

### #345 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

Veteran Member

• Banned
• 1,412 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

Military(ret.)
• Age: 50
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Missouri

Posted 06 July 2015 - 12:50 PM

I'm not interested in playing your sophomoric word games and meeting your demands that have been deliberately set up in order to make it impossible to meet them.

Word Games?  You said....:  "If I can define it, and quantify it, I can add it up."

Go ahead:   Energy....?  Quantify it.....?  Then sum all the Energy in the Universe for us.....?

Can you point to the "Word Games" here...?

My response was to your comment asking "If you don't know what something is .... then how on GOD'S GREEN EARTH can you add it up?"  The fact is that, we "add up" energy all the time and do so quite accurately and successfully.

Again:  Go ahead:   Energy....?  Quantify it.....?  Then sum all the Energy in the Universe for us.....?

If you don't know what energy is, look it up.

I surely don't know "WHAT" it is.  You said you do know, so......?

And, doesn't that then Beg The Question as to the veracity of the statements of the Who and Where I "look it up"?

Ya see, we're talking "science" correct, well then...

"Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing."

Give the precise meanings for the terms you are floating here...?  By your responses/tone and frivolously contrived charge of "sophomore word games", you find this request illegitimate?

Well, you told me not to provide a description of gravity and a definition is a description.... and I have no interest in playing semantic hair-splitting games with you.

According to who?

It appears it's both:

Definition---  : an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.

: a statement that describes what something is

: a clear or perfect example of a person or thing

So allow me to "describe" something then you tell me what it is.... L: 9", W: 10", H: 12" it's black and made of plastic.  What is it....?

I don't know why I'm doing this, because the exercise is pointless....

Well because....

"Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing."

Gravity is the attractive force between objects.

So Gravity is a Force?

What's a Force....?

Now, do you want definitions of "attractive," "force," and "objects?"

Just the "Force" part....since we have to be "PRECISE".

Energy - the capacity for doing work.

So if I walk into a Shop after hours and see a Band Saw....I would be justified and Precise in saying, "Look Son...."Energy"?  ...since it has "the Capacity to do work"?

Physics deals with things like force (immaterial), energy (immaterial), velocity (immaterial), distance (immaterial), etc.   Try to paint force or energy or velocity or distance red and put them in a jar.

Deals with? Doesn't that then Beg the Question as to why Physics is "Dealing" with them?

Well maybe they should change the name from Physics...Errr "Physical", to Immaterialism... Errr "Non-Physical"?? ...it's most assuredly more PRECISE for these examples.

You can't do physics without math

Who said so....?

.... just like you can't have a sandwich without bread.

I beg to differ sir...

### #346 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 7,006 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
• Age: 25
• (private)
• Creationist
• Australia

Posted 07 July 2015 - 09:04 PM

My mistake.... it is kinetic energy that is positive.  Potential energy is negative.  Sometimes my proof reading leaves much to be desired.  We used to have a phrase for this.... I should get 15 lashes with a wet noodle.

No worries.

Chemical energy may depend on exactly what we're talking about.  The energy contained in chemical bonds is potential energy and is therefore negative.  When we break those bonds, we release that potential energy then new bonds are formed which will change some of the released energy back to potential energy.   A good example is combustion.  We burn gasoline breaking the bonds that held hydrogen and carbon together releasing the potential energy of them converting it to kinetic (heat) energy.  Water and CO2 will then form which takes some of that released energy and stores it in new bonds.  The new bonds in the water and CO2 will have less potential energy than the original carbon-hydrogen bonds.  The difference is the energy released in the reaction that becomes available to push our cars down the road.  (How much is actually converted to motion of the car and how much becomes useless (entropy) is the result of a number of different factors.)

It seems you're getting ahead of yourself. You still haven demonstrated why X energy is positive and Y is negative. Also you have yet to demonstrate how these "negative" and "positive" energy can cancel each other out. Or is calling energy "negative" and "positive" merely a label an atheist has given rather than a property of reality.

Additionally can energy change from "positive" to "negative", doesn't the fact that they can change from one form to another defy claiming that one is "negative" and another is "positive". The terms "positive" and "negative" are used to identify opposites, indeed this is where the assumption that the energy can "cancel" out comes from... Yet for all other (real) occurrences or uses of the words positive and negative, positive things don't convert into negative things unless there has been outside intervention... Eg- A negative number can become a positive number only after addition or multiplication.

Creationists also claim the universe came from nothing.

Wrong... We claim the universe came from God, God is not nothing...

In fact, the creationist scientific journal was titled "Creation ex-nihilo" for years.  It was hilarious to me that creationists would argue the impossibility of the universe coming from nothing, then cite an article in a journal whose very title was "Creation from nothing."

God created from nothing (else but himself), hence the name...

Mainstream scientists do say there was "some form of creation event."    Our disagreement is not that a "creation event" took place.... it's what that event was and when it happened.

True.

The naturalist believes that somehow nature defied itself and created something from nothing.
Whereas the Creationist believes that God created.

Here is a list of questions or problems I posed on post #334. The original recipient hasn't responded in a while, perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer them.

Assumption 1- How is it deemed "negative"?

Assumption 2- Is this "negative" in terms of what negative originally means, aka opposite to positive?

Assumption 3- So how is gravity the opposite to "positive" forms of energy?

Assumption 4- How do these "positive" and "negative" forms of energy cancel out?

Contradiction 1- How do these "positive" and "negative" energy convert from one to the other when they are deemed the opposite to each other? Can protons convert into electrons too?

Contradiction 2- To claim that if the average is zero then that means it is zero essentially defies the law that energy cannot be destroyed.

Contradiction 3- Since energy can convert from one to the other then it seems that the total amount of "positive" and "negative" energy will always be fluctuating hence there can never be net zero energy due to these fluctuations.

Contradiction 4- Entropy always increases, is this "positive" or "negative" energy? How do you account for this in terms of keeping a net energy of zero... (Keep in mind if entropy is always increasing and is deemed "negative" then that means the total amount of "positive" energy will be decreasing to account for the decrease in "negative"... since energy cannot be created it must come from somewhere).

### #347 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

Veteran Member

• Veteran Member
• 1,297 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:South Africa
• Age: 35
• Christian
• Creationist
• Waverley

Posted 12 August 2016 - 07:45 AM

Okay, I'm going to try to get us to agree on a few basic points, if only to see what assumptions we are each making

1. Can you agree that the processes of protein synthesis and gene duplication take place through chemical reactions. If not, through what? ("Software" isn't an answer, software needs ?hardware to operate)

2. Can you agree that mutations are a well-established consequence of gene duplication?

3. Can you agree that some mutations can be beneficial, if only a little?

4. Can you agree that genes wouldn't work if they were made of blue cheese?

5. Can you agree that population genetics doesn't deal with chemistry?

This is just to get a solid point from which further discussion can occur.

1. Chemical reactions are taking place during " processes of protein synthesis and gene duplicationI'm surprised someone thought that this is what is in dispute.

2. Mutations may take place DURING gene duplication, but they're not the consequence of it. It's a failure in complete gene duplication.

3. Beneficial like making spelling mistakes, when copying a text or formula. Theoretical such mistakes may make for a better text. Generally they make it less legible.

4. Point being? The genes work with the molecules they do.

5. Not directly, but they measure the distribution of certain chemical constellations within a population.

Mutations are what's driving the process of aging in organisms. You don't get 80 year olds suddenly starting to look like 24 again.

Under the bottom line, mutations don't produce better improved organisms. So they're not the answer to new better adapted species arising.

However (loss) mutations may be an answer to different species arising after populations of the previous super species were reproductively separated.

So Neodarwinian Evolution is a failure as an explanation for the present diversity of species. That dog won't hunt.

• Mike Summers likes this

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users