Jump to content


Photo

Tough Questions For The Skeptics


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#141 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:12 AM

Enoch:

 

 

piasan says:

 No, the analogy is absolutely spot on.  If I wanted to observe a woman giving birth, I'd look for places where women give birth.  Calypsis wants an example of star birth, but excludes the nebulae where it is thought stars are born as "cheating."

 

 

Baloney. Since they've never seen the birth of a star then how would they even think to look at the nebulae in the first place...except for their evolutionary presumptions?  So his analogy is far from spot on. By contrast, we know where babies come from by direct, unhindered observation.

 

By their own admission, no one has seen the birth of a star: 

 

(From Cornell U.) http://curious.astro...urn-on-beginner

 

What is cheating is to declare a star that merely appears from behind a nebular cloud mass but had not previously been observed in its actual birth. HOWEVER, that is not a problem with observing the demise of stars via nova's and supernova's.

 

There have been many of them observed over many thousands of years.  

 

https://en.wikipedia...ova_observation

 

What a stark contrast. If cosmic evolution theory were true then we should see BOTH the birth of stars and the death of stars. Why do we observe only the deaths?

 

By comparison on the biological level we see the same thing with extinctions as observed in the last few hundred years (there are thousands recorded)...

 

http://www.nationalg...ons-since-1600/

 

and yet there is no list of organisms evolving into a different classification during the same time frame! Let our counterpart find one if he thinks he can.



#142 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 June 2015 - 09:08 AM

 No, the analogy is absolutely spot on.  If I wanted to observe a woman giving birth, I'd look for places where women give birth.  Calypsis wants an example of star birth, but excludes the nebulae where it is thought stars are born as "cheating."

Baloney. Since they've never seen the birth of a star then how would they even think to look at the nebulae in the first place

Well, it could be that stars require a lot of material, so we should look where there is a lot of material available... like clouds of interstellar dust such as nebulae.  It makes a lot more sense to look there than it does to try and find stars in the intergalactic voids.

 

 

...except for their evolutionary presumptions?  

Astronomy is completely independent of (biological) evolution.  It studies entirely different lines of evidence that have nothing at all to do with life.

 

 

So his analogy is far from spot on. By contrast, we know where babies come from by direct, unhindered observation.

Let a hospital represent the universe.  If I were to ask where I could see a baby born, you would direct me to the maternity ward.  You have arbitrarily removed the "maternity ward" of stars from consideration by claiming it is "cheating."  The analogy stands.

 

The problem is that the "maternity ward" of stars is, by its nature obscuring of direct observation .... at least in visible light.  On the other hand, we can use infra-red observations to see through the nebular dust.  Of course, infrared capability is much more recent than telescopes, which reduces the likelihood of observing stellar birth even more from my estimate in the "Why don't we see stars igniting" discussion.

 

 

By their own admission, no one has seen the birth of a star: 

 

(From Cornell U.) http://curious.astro...urn-on-beginner

No kidding.   From Calypsis' link:

" .... star formation can happen quite "quickly" compared to other astronomical events, it still can take hundreds of thousands of years. .... the likelihood of looking at the exact place in the sky where a star begins fusion, and looking with a powerful enough telescope, is extremely low."

 

Which was explained long ago in the "Why don't we see stars igniting" discussion.  Given the amount of time we have had the capability to observe star birth and the minscule fraction of the universe covered by telescopes large enough to see it, the odds of such an event actually being observed is one in tens of thousands.  In simple terms, no one has seen the birth of a star because we should not expect to have observed this event. 

 

For that reason, the failure to observe the birth of a star is no big deal.

 

 

What is cheating is to declare a star that merely appears from behind a nebular cloud mass but had not previously been observed in its actual birth. HOWEVER, that is not a problem with observing the demise of stars via nova's and supernova's.

 

There have been many of them observed over many thousands of years.  

 

https://en.wikipedia...ova_observation

 

What a stark contrast. If cosmic evolution theory were true then we should see BOTH the birth of stars and the death of stars. Why do we observe only the deaths?

Any science teacher would know that.... the death of a star, especially in a supernova, takes place in a matter of minutes or seconds and releases so much energy for weeks afterward it can be seen with the unaided eye for distances on the order of tens of thousands of light years.  With a decent telescope, that distance can be extended to billions of light years. 

 

Calypsis can't even explain HOW we observe the deaths of stars.  Take Sn1987a as an example.  The star Sanduleak 69-202 erupted in a supernova explosion that was observed on Earth in 1987.  That event produced a supernova so bright it could be seen by the unaided eye even though it is at a distance of over 167,000 light years.  This is more than 18x farther than we should be able to see in a universe only 6,000 (or so) years old.  

 

Let Calypsis explain HOW we can even see Sn1987a.  He won't.   He can't.

 

The matter of observing the births of stars has been addressed already ..... and any science teacher should know that also.

 

 

By comparison on the biological level we see the same thing with extinctions as observed in the last few hundred years (there are thousands recorded)...

 

http://www.nationalg...ons-since-1600/

 

and yet there is no list of organisms evolving into a different classification during the same time frame! Let our counterpart find one if he thinks he can.

Same thing....  it takes tens of thousands to millions of years for organisms to evolve "into a different classification."  On the other hand, it takes only a few dozen years to completely wipe out a  species.   In addition, many of the extinctions we have observed, were caused by us.



#143 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 16 June 2015 - 01:58 PM

Okay I just have to stop for a minute here

 

 

∆S =Q/T…

 

S = the measure of the disorder whether in grams, gallons, lbs, or whatever is under consideration. Q is the amount of heat (either – or +). T is the temperature in Kelvins

 

Yup, Calypsis thinks you can measure Entropy in gallons  :rotfl3:

 

What's next? Are we measuring density in Ohms? Or maybe velocity in Radians?  :gotcha:

 

(For the record, the correct answer is Joule per Kelvin in the SI, don't know in the imperial, probably BTU per Fahrenheit Degree or something)



#144 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:39 PM

Okay I just have to stop for a minute here. 

 

Yup, Calypsis thinks you can measure Entropy in gallons  :rotfl3:

 

 

 

 

Gallons burned, you idiot. 

 

Premium gasoline produces 1.23×108 J of heat per gallon when it is burned at a temperature of approximately 400ºC (although the amount can vary with the fuel mixture). If the car's engine is 25.0% efficient, three-fourths of that heat is expelled into the air, typically at 20.0ºC.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entropy-and-gasoline.761856/

 

Now, back in the can you go.



#145 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 16 June 2015 - 05:51 PM

Gallons burned, you idiot

 

Premium gasoline produces 1.23×108 J of heat per gallon when it is burned at a temperature of approximately 400ºC (although the amount can vary with the fuel mixture). If the car's engine is 25.0% efficient, three-fourths of that heat is expelled into the air, typically at 20.0ºC.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entropy-and-gasoline.761856/

 

Now, back in the can you go.

 

That's enough with the name-calling Cal.

 

Okay I just have to stop for a minute here

 

 

Yup, Calypsis thinks you can measure Entropy in gallons  :rotfl3:

 

What's next? Are we measuring density in Ohms? Or maybe velocity in Radians?  :gotcha:

 

(For the record, the correct answer is Joule per Kelvin in the SI, don't know in the imperial, probably BTU per Fahrenheit Degree or something)

 

And that's enough with the attempts to bait and provoke him Iguana. The only reason he hasn't taken the bait in your other attempts is that he's had you on ignore. I haven't missed them.



#146 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:06 PM

 

 

And that's enough with the attempts to bait and provoke him Iguana. The only reason he hasn't taken the bait in your other attempts is that he's had you on ignore. I haven't missed them.

Sincerely, I'm not trying to provoke him. I am calling attention to the fact that he's blatantly mistaken about something as simple as the unit of Entropy, something which the briefest Google search will tell you is the Joule/Kelvin. Which is not the least of his blatant physics mistakes (including things as memorable as claiming that the stars are north of the North Pole). This is the reason why my response was written in third person. I recognize that it was not what you'd call classy, and I apologize for it, but I do not take it back and I reject the claim that it was an attempt at baiting or provoking.

 

Additionally his explanation about how the gallon is a valid way to measure Entropy is just him digging himself deeper. Somehow I'm to take that "gallons burned" is something I can somehow express in Joules/Kelvin in such a way that it makes sense in the context of the 2LOT. I suppose if you squint really hard you could say that since burning gasoline is a thermodynamic process, there is some correlation between gallons burned and increase in Entropy, but that's about it.

 

Cal knows nothing of basic science, is all I'm saying



#147 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

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

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

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:19 PM

According to the link you provided, the 2LOT is no problem for DeltaG.

 

 

 

What link?  And I didn't say 2LOT was a problem with DeltaG.  DeltaG speaks to it Directly.

 

 

Stereoisomerization isn't exactly a high school topic.  

 

 

Fair enough

 

 

Besides, I abhor organic chemistry. 

 

 

LOL, it is somewhat of a Bear isn't it.

 

 

Actually, my position is based far more on astronomy than cosmology.  But, given your comments, you probably have the position that astronomy is no more scientific than astrology.

 

 

Bulls Eye!!  And I have that position for a very good reason....errr SUPPORTED.

 

Let's evaluate "Astronomy" and see if it is "Science".  If it is, then it should take anyone with a mere bare bones understanding of science less that a Planck Time to.....

 

Post ONE "Formal Hypothesis" from the Discipline...which then leads to ONE Scientific Theory, Right?  Go ahead.....?

 

 

Not correct.  Where have I ever said time is a physical entity?

 

 

:o

 

As I recall, you denied time can even be measured. 

 

 

ahhh no.  I said that "The Measure" isn't the thing it's "Measuring".  More precisely, I'm pretty sure I said....

 

A Football Field is 100 Yards....... but the Football Field isn't Yardsticks.

 

Time can't be: "Bent", "Warped", "Dilated" ect anymore than Love can be or any other "CONCEPT" can.  It's NOT PHYSICAL. Ergo, how many alleged "theories" that "REIFY" this absurdity are worshiped.... that should take their rightful place right beside Phlogiston?

 

 

No, the analogy is absolutely spot on.

 

 

It's not and I very simply showed why it's a False Analogy.



#148 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:35 PM

That's enough with the name-calling Cal.

 

 

And that's enough with the attempts to bait and provoke him Iguana. The only reason he hasn't taken the bait in your other attempts is that he's had you on ignore. I haven't missed them.

 

Acknowledged. It won't happen again. He will be on ignore from now on.



#149 Will

Will

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I have no doubt that I am a Humanist
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ontario

Posted 16 June 2015 - 08:34 PM

Let's evaluate "Astronomy" and see if it is "Science".  If it is, then it should take anyone with a mere bare bones understanding of science less that a Planck Time to.....

 

Post ONE "Formal Hypothesis" from the Discipline...which then leads to ONE Scientific Theory, Right?  Go ahead.....?

 

 

 

I hypothesize that there will be a total eclipse of the moom for the Eastern half of NA on Sept 28 2015 because the earth will pass between the sun and moon causing a shadow.



#150 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

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

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

Posted 17 June 2015 - 09:01 AM

I hypothesize that there will be a total eclipse of the moom for the Eastern half of NA on Sept 28 2015 because the earth will pass between the sun and moon causing a shadow.

 

That's not a Hypothesis. What's Your Independent Variable....Your Eyelids?

 

Forming Testable Hypotheses:
 
"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.
 
Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.
If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.
Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.
 
Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent." The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.
The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
 
But not all if-then statements are hypotheses. For example, "If I play the lottery, then I will get rich." This is a simple prediction. In a formalized hypothesis, a tentative relationship is stated. For example, if the frequency of winning is related to frequency of buying lottery tickets. "Then" is followed by a prediction of what will happen if you increase or decrease the frequency of buying lottery tickets. If you always ask yourself that if one thing is related to another, then you should be able to test it.
 
Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.  An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion." {Emphasis Mine}
 
 
I can make a similar hypothesis:
 
I "hypothesize" that the combined scores of next years Super Bowl will be less than 300 points.
 
 
regards


#151 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

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

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

Posted 17 June 2015 - 10:06 AM

 Besides, I abhor organic chemistry. 

 

Down Memory Lane.

 

I remember being somewhat young  ;)  and cocky just obliterating courses @ the University including General Chemistry and then met "O CHEM"   :o .  Many classmates @ the time preparing for MCATS .  I distinctly remember, like it was yesterday, standing outside after the first class almost in shock then just coming completely unglued @ the seams (wish I had a video)...Easily the TOP 5 in Life altering experiences; and that's saying something for me.  

 

btw, I wasn't the only one...IT WAS EVERTBODY!!! LOL

 

A friend happened by and could tell immediately that something was very VERY WRONG.  I have to admit I lost it....The whole 9 yards:  Denial, Feeling sorry for myself, Anger, Sadness, ect rotflol, all in about 10 minutes.  A Shrink would have had a field day.  My whole plan literally crashed before my eyes...I had to pass both I and II or it was curtains....I didn't have enough money to change Majors @ that Point.....AND YES, That Option was Front and Center!!!!!

 

Long Story short.....when I finally calmed down:  I got PIST (as usual) always always go on the offensive.  Tutors were an option but WELL above my price range; So....I went and met with the Professor.  I said, "Listen...I'm passing these courses!!" (wish I had a video, again)  By his reaction, he knew I meant business.... I was fortunate he didn't call security  :funny:

So he tutored me each day for the next 3 months.... cause I was sitting outside his door everyday after Class!!  What other Option than "Calling Security" did he have?

 

Thanks, I haven't thought about it in years....looking back, it was a Pivotal Turning Point for me, personally.

 

All that from just an itty bitty...... "Course".  <----- The Buck and "The Pretenders" STOP HERE lol

 

 

regards


  • gilbo12345 and Goku like this

#152 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 June 2015 - 11:07 AM

Thanks, I haven't thought about it in years....looking back, it was a Pivotal Turning Point for me, personally.

You're more than welcome.   It's interesting how things will jog our memories.

 

With regard to my comment about the moral character of carbon.....

As you know, teachers are always trying to find ways to get students to remember things.   I was explaining to my students that carbon will combine with everything in the periodic table from group 1 (Hydrogen) to group 17 (chlorine).  For some reason, the "s-word" came to mind and I just kind of blurted out the comment about carbon getting around.   A couple days later, I was walking down the hall as a couple boys who weren't even in my class walked by in the opposite direction.   As we passed, I overheard one of them say: "She's just carbon."  It may not have been very nice, but you know you communicated when a comment you make becomes part of school slang.

 

BTW, with regard to my chem class... 

It had the reputation of being one of the three toughest classes in school.  The others were pre-calc/trig and AP English IV.  At the start of my 2nd year at that school, the principal called me aside and said he was getting complaints my chem class was too hard and maybe I should back off a bit and I told him I would look into it.  The following day, I asked my chem students how many were going to college.  Every hand went up.  So, I had them each take out a piece of paper and (without putting their name on it) tell me what they planned to major in college.  Eleven of twelve students were going into some form of medicine.

 

I explained that in college there are certain classes that are used to "weed out" those who can't cut it.  In medicine and engineering, one of those classes was first year chem.  I told them my objective was to get them ready so when they got to college, that course wouldn't eliminate them.  It was also pointed out that if they couldn't make it in my class, maybe they should reconsider what they planned to do with the rest of their lives.   There were no more complaints and there was no grade below a "C." 

 

Each year after that, I made it a point on the first day of class to inform my students that my objective was to get them ready for first year college chem and if they thought they were just going to play around, they needed to find a different subject.  This got rid of the clowns and probably had a lot to do with the grades of my classes.

 

How successful was I?   Well, in my last year at that school one of my freshmen told me I thought I was successful with my chem students if they failed.  The response was that few of my students had ever gotten a D and not one had ever failed.... but I didn't know how successful I was until they had taken college chem.  Every former student I met who had gone on to college and taken chem got an "A" in first year chem and told me how easy it was because everything the professor covered had already been introduced in my class.  One student, who was pretty good but not one of my best and brightest, told me his classmates were hiring him to tutor them at $20 per hour.

 

Not bad for a high school introductory course if I do say so myself.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#153 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 June 2015 - 06:20 AM

Okay I just have to stop for a minute here
 
 
Yup, Calypsis thinks you can measure Entropy in gallons  :rotfl3:
 
What's next? Are we measuring density in Ohms? Or maybe velocity in Radians?  :gotcha:
 
(For the record, the correct answer is Joule per Kelvin in the SI, don't know in the imperial, probably BTU per Fahrenheit Degree or something)

 
Worse.

∆S =Q/T…
 
S = the measure of the disorder whether in grams, gallons, lbs, or whatever is under consideration. Q is the amount of heat (either – or +). T is the temperature in Kelvins

 
He thinks that Entropy has shifting units: grams (which denotes mass), and gallons (which denotes volume).
 
And even worse, he got this from a page that displas the correct units of entropy 
 
 

a) ΔS = ΔSHOT + ΔSCOLD ΔS = -((.75*(1.23*108 J/gal)*(1 gal/35 mile)*(1 mile))/(400+273 K) + ((.75*(1.23*108 J/gal)*(1 gal/35 mile)*(1 mile))/(20+273 K) ΔS = -3916 J/K + 8996 J/K [/size]

ΔS = 5079 J/K

Reference https://www.physicsf...asoline.761856/
 
But he has done worse. He has maintained, against all evidence that entropy is a force.
 




That statement is really, really dumb. Entropy is a FORCE....that exists whether it is measured by human beings or not.

(follow the time stamp if you don't believe me)
 
 
Yep, forces. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows that forces are vector quantities (expressed in Newtons), while entropy is a numerical quantity and expressed in J/K. Completely different.
Three times I asked him to simply post the units of force and entropy. Three times he refused with the lame excuse that I had to do my homework myself.
And that guy claims to have been teaching thermodynamics and entropy for 26 years...



#154 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 27 June 2015 - 08:33 AM

driewerf:

 

Worse.

 
He thinks that Entropy has shifting units: grams (which denotes mass), and gallons (which denotes volume).

 

 

 

And I referred to such a conclusion by Iguana as idiocy. Entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. I NEVER stated what you claim that I did. Example: a piece of paper has mass. Paper burns. The entropy is found in the amount of paper that is consumed in ounces or grams, etc.. The same with gasoline. It has volume, of course, but that is not THE measurement of entropy. The entropy is in HOW MUCH gasoline has been burned in terms of ounces, gallons, liters, etc. But it would seem to me that an educated person would understand this.
 

 

And even worse, he got this from a page that displas...

 

 

 

 

What does 'displas' mean? 

 

Why don't you try reading things more carefully? Why don't you even try to be honest?

 

I quoted the 'correct units' because that is what I meant to begin with and that is what I have taught.

 

Quote: Premium gasoline produces 1.23×108 J of heat per gallon when it is burned at a temperature of approximately 400ºC (although the amount can vary with the fuel mixture). If the car's engine is 25.0% efficient, three-fourths of that heat is expelled into the air, typically at 20.0ºC.

 

How much clearer do I have to be?

 

Reference https://www.physicsf...asoline.761856/
 
I'll say it plainly, driewerf: if your mind had not been ruined by Orwellianized neo-Darwinist dogma then you wouldn't have any problem grasping what I said. That was scrambled eggs thinking, fella.

 

Reference https://www.physicsf...asoline.761856/
 


But he has done worse. He has maintained, against all evidence that entropy is a force.

 

 

 

Is this a joke? Are you really that ignorant of this matter? Entropy IS a force...according to your own comrades in evolution:

 

Entropic force (Wikipedia)

Quote: In physics, an entropic force acting in a system is a phenomenological force resulting from the entire system's statistical tendency to increase its entropy, rather than from a particular underlying microscopic force.

 

And here is the equation for it: In the canonical ensemble, the entropic force 4a06b02e58a4c388b74f018af9aceaca.png associated to a macrostate partition c9eb00fbf89187d549d0dbbc2fb55370.png is given by:[2][3]

aa5fce47ef90e1804bedf26050e344aa.png

where b9ece18c950afbfa6b0fdbfa4ff731d3.png is the temperature, e3330134259caef191889be24f4d5a73.png is the entropy associated to the macrostate 598f6444904755dda4a859a1e377468e.png and 6099899694a945142068080d96d2a469.png is the present macrostate.

 

 

Here is another source that tells us the same thing:

 

Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force, similar in importance to gravity or electro- magnetism.

 

http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

 

And here is yet another:

 

We have define energy as the driving force for changes, entropy is also a driving force for physical and chemical changes (reactions). 

 

http://www.science.u...em/entropy.html

 

But to put the icing on the cake:

 

Entropic Forces

"Entropy is more than an abstract quantity but can result in measurable forces which can lead to surprising effects, e.g. that the amount of order can be increased when the entropy of the system rises."

http://www.pi2.uni-s...p?article_id=19

 

So how many sources from those on your side of the debate must I give you before you realize the mistake you just made?
 
 The truth is, driewerf, that you don't know what you're talking about and you would do well to check out of EFF for a good year or so and re-study these issues from a different persepective. You were taught wrongly and you need to come to understand that. I would recommend Creation Ministries International, for it has a great deal of scientific technical papers that would help you in such matters. 

 

Three times I asked him to simply post the units of force and entropy.

 

 

 

Concerning what? Solids, liquids, or gases? You didn't specify. Nor did you specify whether you wanted an answer in the form of an equation or merely a definition.

 

We can apply the second law of thermodynamics to chemical reactions by noting that the entropy of a system is a state function that is directly proportional to the disorder of the system.(i.e. WHATEVER that system consists of: solids, liquids, or gases)

 

delta.gifSsys > 0 implies that the system becomes more disordered during the reaction. delta.gifSsys < 0 implies that the system becomes less disordered during the reaction.

 

 http://chemed.chem.p...h21/entropy.php

 

 

Three times he refused with the lame excuse that I had to do my homework myself.
And that guy claims to have been teaching thermodynamics and entropy for 26 years...

 

 

 

It was an empty challenge to begin with! Why should I have to take your little pop quizz to prove what I know about entropy?



#155 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 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 27 June 2015 - 10:33 PM

 He thinks that Entropy has shifting units: grams (which denotes mass), and gallons (which denotes volume).

 

Please learn to read Driewerf....

 

Gallons burned,

 

Premium gasoline produces 1.23×108 J of heat per gallon when it is burned at a temperature of approximately 400ºC (although the amount can vary with the fuel mixture). If the car's engine is 25.0% efficient, three-fourths of that heat is expelled into the air, typically at 20.0ºC.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entropy-and-gasoline.761856/

 

Now, back in the can you go.


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#156 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 June 2015 - 02:20 PM

Please learn to read Driewerf...

 

Gilbo, it's the same mental manipulation we've seen in them countless times: take the creationists strong points and turn them around on them and make the facts say something different from what they obviously tell us; and never mind if it is truly accurate or if it actually addresses the issue honestly. 



#157 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 June 2015 - 01:16 AM

 
Worse.

 
He thinks that Entropy has shifting units: grams (which denotes mass), and gallons (which denotes volume).
 
And even worse, he got this from a page that displas the correct units of entropy 
 
 

Reference https://www.physicsf...asoline.761856/
 

 

Please learn to read Driewerf....

 

Gallons burned, you ####. 

 

Premium gasoline produces 1.23×108 J of heat per gallon when it is burned at a temperature of approximately 400ºC (although the amount can vary with the fuel mixture). If the car's engine is 25.0% efficient, three-fourths of that heat is expelled into the air, typically at 20.0ºC.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entropy-and-gasoline.761856/

 

Now, back in the can you go.

In the interest of accuracy, here is Calypsis first statement:

 

You can’t clarify anything to that man. The equation I supplied was as close as I could come to answering his challenge but it should have been obvious that the same entropic/disorder factor that tears down & kills all living things is the very thing that prevents life from forming by blind natural process to begin with!  However…..one cannot give an equation concerning the formulation of chemicals into living organisms --- why? Because it has never been observed.  Such a thing has never happened.  So in the basic entropic formula…

 

∆S =Q/T…

 

S = the measure of the disorder whether in grams, gallons, lbs, or whatever is under consideration. Q is the amount of heat (either – or +). T is the temperature in Kelvins

 

… how does one supply the numerical value to the variables when there was no single celled organism that formed from scratch to begin with? The formula I did give was from evolutrionist scientists in eastern Europe and the only thing that was lacking was the numerical values of what they were measuring. That I do not know. Furthermore, it does not help to go to the next level and measure the heat exchange between two bodies brought into thermal contact:

 

Notice, Calypsis listed three measurements of "disorder" that are not ways to measure entropy at all.  Grams are a measurement of mass.  Gallons measure volume.  Pounds measure force.  In his initial comment, he clearly said these things are used as a "measure of the disorder."  There was no mention of "gallons burned."

 

Calypsis has also said entropy is a force.  Forces are vector quantities and entropy has no directional component.

 

BTW, thermodynamics is a science of measurement.  If you can't "supply the numerical value to the variables" you can't show a violation of thermodynamics.... the 2LOT or otherwise.

 

I'm not qualified to say what branch(es) of science Calypsis may have taught for 26 years.... but we can be pretty certain it had nothing at all to do with physics.

 

One more thing, my mistake.... I had thought by 45 years of scientific research, he meant doing research.  I didn't understand he was using the term in the sense of reading books.  (Which can legitimately called research... in which case, I happen to exceed his 45 years.)



#158 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 June 2015 - 07:57 AM

Dear friends:

 

Piasan says:


In the interest of accuracy, here is Calypsis first statement:

 

 

Why, oh, why, do we have to go over this yet again? Wasn't I clear enough for the common laymen to understand? But that is a big difference between myself and my counterparts in this matter. I speak in language that is easily understood by everyone (everyone except perhaps those who choke the readers in such technical language that the average layman cannot understand them.

 

Notice, Calypsis listed three measurements of "disorder" that are not ways to measure entropy at all.  Grams are a measurement of mass.  Gallons measure volume.  Pounds measure force.  In his initial comment, he clearly said these things are used as a "measure of the disorder."  There was no mention of "gallons burned."

 

 

And as I told Iguana that was a matter that should have been understood to begin with. They both understood what I was driving at but both choose to pretend otherwise. A persons gasoline gauge on his dashboard serves as a 'measure of disorder' for all practical purposes. Maybe piasan doesn't have one.

 

Calypsis has also said entropy is a force.Forces are vector quantities and entropy has no directional component.

 

 

But I documented FOUR evolutionist sources to verify that entropy IS a force of nature and it is the cause of all degeneration and decay in nature.

 

Here they are again:

 

Entropic force (Wikipedia)

Quote: In physics, an entropic force acting in a system is a phenomenological force resulting from the entire system's statistical tendency to increase its entropy, rather than from a particular underlying microscopic force.

 

And here is the equation for it: In the canonical ensemble, the entropic force 4a06b02e58a4c388b74f018af9aceaca.png associated to a macrostate partition c9eb00fbf89187d549d0dbbc2fb55370.png is given by:[2][3]

aa5fce47ef90e1804bedf26050e344aa.png

where b9ece18c950afbfa6b0fdbfa4ff731d3.png is the temperature, e3330134259caef191889be24f4d5a73.png is the entropy associated to the macrostate 598f6444904755dda4a859a1e377468e.png and 6099899694a945142068080d96d2a469.png is the present macrostate.

 

 

Here is another source that tells us the same thing:

 

Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force, similar in importance to gravity or electro- magnetism.

 

http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

 

And here is yet another:

 

We have define energy as the driving force for changes, entropy is also a driving force for physical and chemical changes(reactions). 

 

http://www.science.u...em/entropy.html

 

But to put the icing on the cake:

 

Entropic Forces

"Entropy is more than an abstract quantity but can result in measurable forces which can lead to surprising effects, e.g. that the amount of order can be increased when the entropy of the system rises."

But on top of that here is even more than I gave earlier to prove that point:

 

Entropic force1.png?v=20111214172750
In thermodynamicsentropic force or "force of entropy" is oft-used, albeit ill-defined, term used to describe the thermodynamic force aspects of the entropy in a system. 

Etymology
In 1923, American physicists Gilbert Lewis and Merle Randall were describing free energy as the driving force of chemical reactions. In particular, according to the equation:

They state that “we may think of the quantity – ΔF as the driving force for a reaction.” This view traces back to the 1882 proof by German physicist Hermann Helmholtzthat free energy is the true measure of the affinity (or driving force) of the reaction. 

In this view, one may then see the two driving forces of an isothermal isobaric chemical reaction as composed of two parts:

 

 Driving force = – ΔF = TΔS – ΔH = “entropic force” (TΔS) + “enthalpic force” (– ΔH)

 

http://www.eoht.info.../Entropic force

 

As bad as Iguana is, I've never seen a poster on this board stick his foot in his mouth as much as piasan. Yet he repeatedly comes back for more as if he were totally oblivious to the intellectual beatings he takes. Oh, well, it's a free country.

 

BTW, thermodynamics is a science of measurement.  If you can't "supply the numerical value to the variables" you can't show a violation of thermodynamics.... the 2LOT or otherwise.

 

 

 

His challenge is like saying, "Prove to me mathematcially that pink unicorns do not exist." So where do we get the numerical values to solve an equation for it? Where would we get the variables to begin with? But I supplied an equation (from those of his persuasion) to demonstrate that living cells ALWAYS degenerate...they never become something different than cells and never produce something more complex than the DNA code they are programmed with.

 

I'm not qualified to say what branch(es) of science Calypsis may have taught for 26 years.... but we can be pretty certain it had nothing at all to do with physics.

 

 

He continually attacks my education and/or credibility but I don't really care. It wouldn't make any difference if I were a PhD in physics and had a background at General Electric or Sandia National Lab. Just look at what he has said about Dr. Russell Humphreys for example.

One more thing, my mistake.... I had thought by 45 years of scientific research, he meant doing research.  I didn't understand he was using the term in the sense of reading books.  (Which can legitimately called research... in which case, I happen to exceed his 45 years.)

 

 

 

What I did in the library at Oklahoma City University and later the study I did at Indiana State University after class was research.

 

Definition: research - 1. careful or diligent search. studious inquiry or examination aimed at the discovery and interpretation of new knowledge

3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject.
 
The truth is that that proud man looks down his nose at anyone who doesn't agree with his idolatry called Darwinism.

  • Mike Summers likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users