Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Advanced member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by svigil777

  1. svigil777

    Objective Of Discussion

    Hello, I would like to discuss the objective of talking about creation vs. evolution. Would anyone like to propose an objective? In some of the literature, it appeared the objective is to give creationists practice in debating with evolutionists. Is that all this is about? Why would any proponent of evolution want to discuss based on such an underlying objective? Perhaps I have the wrong objective. If so, I look forward to being corrected. Wouldn't it be great if the objective was arriving at the truth? We are all on the this blue ball together...
  2. Why are dogs not special and worthy of special consideration by God? They mourn the dead. See Strays hold vigil at funeral for deceased animal lover for description. From my perspective, if a soul exists at all, it must exist in any individual capable of mourning death over another, K-9 or other. This web site seems all about disavowing science to make room for the supernatural. How do we know anybody has a soul… other than “the bible tells us so� What specific evidence has anyone ever found that can be examined? What repeatable experiment has ever shown this that we can perform at will?
  3. Response to Calypsis, in post, #478 , pp24, pp. 24, April 2015 - 05:12 AM. A video was provided on dragon mythology, entitled, “Forbidden History: Dinosaurs and the Bibleâ€. I watched through part 6 a few references to dragons in part 6. There were some interesting pictures and claims that dinos had been on the ark. Interestingly, even the picture shown of the ark contained now dinos. Evidently, this is a new idea in Christian thought. Finally, according to the video, archaeology has never overturned anything in the bible. So, this appears to be a subject Calvsis wishes to discuss further. It reminds me of, You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth! First, this breaks guideline 3 in the rules. (Evidently, it’s not just a guideline.) Your post should not be simply a link or links to articles/websites, or a wholesale cut&paste of an article/web-page. Various snippets from articles are fine, provided it is in the context of the argument you are developing. This shows the reader you understand the topic you are debating and makes for more productive discussion. and specific normative (required) guidance given by Bonedigger. The onus is on you to present your argument, not just post links where your opponent is supposed to dig through it and try to find what arguments you are appealing to Aside from that, who’s to say that ancient foundation diggers and minors haven’t been scared silly throughout history by old fossils? In addition, the whole business of the search for modern dinos sidesteps one issue. It is accepted that some dinosaurs exist today. I personally provided video evidence of a bird with claws. Even if all dinosaurs still existed today, that would not go against evolution. The thing we do not see is a Poodle in the Cambrian period. That would disembowel the theory. Nor do we see people or tigers or dogs in the Jurassic. But many are seeing Dragons! See this 1.5 minute clip. Real Flying Dragon I Never seen anything like this Seriously though, if God wanted dinos to live, why would he go through the trouble of putting them on the ark only to let them all die off after the flood waters receded (obstensively) in 2000 BC? We don't believe in the 65 million yr old KT event, period. That’s a religious statement of faith. If you want to make such statements, go ahead. But, its groundless and it is unsubstantiated. And, we do see this band all over the earth. Lastly, God doesn't deceive anyone: you have deceived yourselves. Your time frame for earth's history is wrong. Your whole post appears to break #5 in the forum rules that disallows: Clear cases of misrepresentation, quoting out of context, or unsubstantiated hearsay. (Emphasis added.) Why is the moderator not stepping in when these rules are broken by the theists on the forum?
  4. Responding to Schera Do’s post #402, pp. 21, Thank-you for the post Steve, I was referring to the omni____ God: If God can/has done any- and everything that God wants, then there is no point in your question--whatever was, is and will be is and always will be the result of God and is not susceptible to our "whys?" and "what fors?" If this is the case, we have no free will in the matter. Every moment of our entire life is fully prescribed and predetermined. We have nothing to decide. We are automatons. God will reward us or punish us according to what he predestined us to do. Daniel Dennett believes we have free will because it’s impossible to predetermine what we will do, even if we are mere actors in a sea of particles governed by the laws of physics alone. Sam Harris believes we are just a spectacularly good computational machine. Dennett seems to explain consciousness as an illusion. But that is hard for me to accept. Sam Harris’ view is also hard to accept because I know I am writing to you at this moment. If Daniel Dennett is correct, does that mean there is no god that created us?
  5. Response to Post #476 by Calypsis, StormanNorman, on 02 Apr 2015 - 9:02 PM, said: Hi Mike, Let's say I draw a ball 50 times from a barrel that has 100 balls that are either blue or red; and in all 50 draws, I pull out a red ball, what can I say about the number of blue balls in the barrel? Mathematically, it's still possible that the barrel contains blue balls....but, those odds are not very good. A statistically reasonable inference is that the barrel contains NO blue balls. It works the same way with fossils; dinosaurs and lions (for example) are never found in the same geologic layers. Dinosaurs are always at or below the KT boundary and lions are always above it .....and there have been thousands of these fossils found. I think we have reached the point that a very reasonable inference is that they did not live in the same time and place ...... Which means you have dissed all of our documentation no matter how much or how legitimate it is Dismissed? Disempowered? Dismembered? Dispatched? Disemboweled? Possibly. Disrespected? I don’t think so. StormanNorman was contrite. He presented his case in an entirely respectful manner. The trouble is that his argument was crystal clear and the logic was inescapable. If I was on your side, I would try to argue that the KT boundary is fictional or it is localized. I would quibble with the dating methods to match up the boundary in different locations. I might try some sweeping generalization as “You can prove anything with statistics.†If I was administrator, I might just delete the post and quietly ban StormanNorman. However, the KT boundary has similar if not identical miscroscopic and macroscopic characteristic everywhere you go. The dating methods are based on mathematics you can learn in any first quarter calculus class. The chemistry uses amazing isotope analysis techniques. The statistics ruze could be seen through by the more sophisticated. Quiet deletions would work great for the sheep. But, those who are already on the edge would question the integrity of the site owners and might make a stink or just quietly leave. I am not smart enough to imagine a suitable defense. and there is no use in discussing the matter further with you on this topic. Nonetheless, I will leave that up to the discretion of my brethren. If this was a nice coffee table discussion, it would certainly be time to change conversation to the weather. For me to mount such an attack on my Sweetheart’s mother would be entirely rude, and I would not do it unless she was meddling in our relationship and I was trying to knock her off her high horse. Otherwise, you do not speak like this to people who are old and infirm. There is nowhere for them to go once they lose face. The web site has its rules. StormanNorman clearly did not break any with his argument. However, the site is a bit ambiguous. It calls this section, the “Evolution Fairytale Forumâ€. This already is a bit rude and prejudicial due to the association of one side with “Fairytaleâ€. However, each contributor has the choice to participate or not. The term “forum†means “a meeting at which a subject can be discussed†or “a place or opportunity for discussing a subjectâ€. However, the Forum index page refers to this section as the “Formal Debate Sectionâ€. And, if you look closely at the rules, it becomes clear that they are slanted more toward a debate. If you’re sharing, you can provide links to big resources. But as I saw during my “vacationâ€, that kind of sharing is disallowed in favor of a more short and concise debate type of a format. In any case, this is a debate site. It is not a place to make the old and the infirm feel good about themselves as they creep toward Alzheimer’s and dementia. In debate parlance, “there is no use in discussing the matter further with you on this topic†is a clear loss.
  6. Respose in blue to: #401 Mike W, Posted 31 March 2015 - 07:21 AM Quote CMI scientist:The astronomer receives light into his telescope on earth and he must make the uniformitarian assumption that the light has been travelling at a constant speed (of about 300, 000 km/s) for the past millions or billions of years to reach earth, and with no relativistic time dilation effects. Only after making that assumption can he make the assumption, not know, that what he observes is coming from some past epoch millions or billions of years earlier. But how could you test that assumption? You can’t! And for that reason this aspect of astrophysics/cosmology is not directly provable by any empirical test. http://creation.com/...tter-everywhere I got an 8 day vacation for putting out links to articles. How come Creationists never get points deducted, vacations or banned? In any case, I’m not going to respond to this. The deck is a bit stacked on this web site. Scott, as you can see, No, I don’t see… If I see something, I’ll let you know :^) God is not fooling anyone with millions and billions of light years, you could not make a case that God makes it to look old without first assuming it is old, and WHY would you assume it old unless you believed evolution to begin with, which God clearly does not teach us? Well, no Mike. Light has a speed. There is no reason to believe this speed changes unless it is affected by some thing, substance or medium. So, the farther it’s gone, the more time there has to have been involved. There is a “standard candle†that has been devised. They know how bright a supernova will be and so they can determine the distance based on the light intensity as seen here on earth. It seems that type of argument is a bit analogous to this one; "Lord, you knew that I hated that person, you know I hate their face and I want to punch them in the face, so it is your fault you made that person come within three feet of my personal space, it is your fault I punched him in the face even though you teach us to turn the other cheek.". (Lol) I’m perfectly happy to discover that evolution is or isn’t true. I don’t care either way. The assumption “I care†is false, so your argument is false. Scott, evolutionists have invented a ridiculous story that the creation created itself, This is a characterization that is just your opinion. nowhere in the bible does it say this, it explicitly states that God created the universe with an outstretched arm and a mighty hand. Prove to me that part of the bible is true. Prove it was written by God. Just prove it was written by the writer it is traditionally written by. Prove when it was written. Can you prove anything associated with this text? So the whole, "God makes it look like atheism and evolution" tends to be a bit of a sophistry...a weak argument, IMHO On a scale of 1 to 10, how humble would that “H†be? :^) Nobody’s saying you can’t have your opinion. But I’m not going to be swayed by opinion. I need evidence, Bud. Here’s one. Nobody responded to my post #452, pp. 23. Maybe you want to tackle this since it has to do with time. How can the earth be 6,000 years old if there are trees in Tasmania that are much older? And we have layers of ice in the perma-frost that are far older than 6,000! Note that I put specific minute markers in that post as to the location of the source of this fact in the video. If you don’t want to respond, that’s fine (although I will think you're a cherry picker :^) But you should be able to google 43,000 year old trees and find it. In any case, 43 is a whole lot bigger than 6! Using a young earth as the foundation for any argument is pure folly.
  7. Response to post #309 by Calypsis is in red: #309 Calypsis4 Posted 26 March 2015 - 09:50 AM Sir, it would really help if you would just use the quote function which is on the tool bar just above this sentence. Just move your cursor over each icon and the one that looks like a square balloon is the one you need to set off my words from yours. It would be much appreciated if you would do so. I would appreciate if you would approach this discussion as an adult with respect. I will format as I see fit. Quote Please don’t think of my analysis and criticism of the document as synonymous with disrespect for the document. I would no more do that than disrespect the books of Homer or the pyramids or a dinosaur or a Australopithecus or a Model A Ford or phlogiston. I am only going to correct you once and if you choose not to accept what is said I won't make another effort. You have made serious errors on almost every point you made in your post. I will try to deal with it matter-of-factly and without insults to your position. I wish you’d hold to that. But I get it. You think I’m Satan’s messenger. So, how else would you think? But we are not here talking about Homer or books on the pyramids, etc. Actually, we are talking about an ancient text. We should evaluate it critically using the methods historians use to evaluate such writings. I completely disagree with you on this point. We are talking about God's Word and to place in question the truthfulness and veracity of the inspired text is to criticize God Himself Says you. because He is the one who put the words of scripture into the minds of the writers. Says you. Therefore your criticisms are indeed an attack upon His written Word. Says you. When a historian evaluates the books of Homer, he’s not attacking. He/she is studying and analyzing… trying to get clues as to facts such as who wrote the text, what the motivations were, when was it written, what facts can be corroborated, what sections are not written literally? Your idea of how to approach an ancient text is unscientific. It is dogmatic. Quote Christianity.com defines the Gospels as… The first five books in the New Testament—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (called the Gospels), and Acts Ref There isn't any historical reasons to doubt that the gospels were written by the personal disciples of Jesus. Those gospels were spread throughout the Roman empire by the very men who wrote them and tens of thousands of converts to Christianity met them and knew them. Those closest to them would have been in a perfect position to expose them as frauds had they not actually been written by Christ's followers. Your charge is empty. Well yeah, that’s what I would have thought ten years ago. In our day, those of us who believe the gospels have seen the power of them to one degree or another. I have seen how the scriptures counter the efforts of Satan and demonic spirits and it is only by the scriptures and in Jesus name that devils are expelled from the lives of possessed people. The thing I learned at church was to value truth. Quote According to the information I recall from Bart Ehrman, Paul did not write any of the gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. What evidence do you have that Luke wrote the book of Luke? This was one of the many things you did not respond to. Ehrman has no evidence for his claims. They are merely an opinion based on ...(guess what?) thin air. There is no evidence to support his claim. Just keep on reading. Fragments of the gospel of Mark were discovered recently and dated at 70 A.D. to A.D. 90. There is direct evidence for this: http://search.aol.co...s_it=searchtabs Per Bart Ehrman, it’s written in a very sophisticated form of Greek and there’s nothing “middle†about it. They couldn’t understand Greek at all. They spoke Aramaic! Here’s the Wiki on Bart Ehrman. “American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.†We don't believe your scholar. The power of the written Word makes the difference. The truth in those wonderful words also makes the difference. Books known as the Gospels don’t include Romans, James, and Jude. Look at you. You didn’t even know what the Gospels were! However, it’s curious. If Paul wrote Romans, why is he referred to in the third person? I don’t write, “Scott Vigil, incredible engineer and promoter of truth…†I’ll write, “Hello so and so, yada yada yada, Best regards, Scott Vigil†or something like that. You didn't quote Paul on the matter. Why? His opening statement he identifies himself as the author of the letter. So what's the problem? “1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—†Ref Nonetheless, because Paul was near-sighted and he had to dictate what he wrote through another. Oh brother, I wouldn’t dictate that way! And if you compare the gospels, in some places there is out and out plagarism. It wasn't plagarism: it was merely the same Spirit inspiring two different writers to give the same teaching in the same words to different people. Keep in mind. You asked me to show you. No problem. Actually, I think you feel this whole thing is a big problem. Quote First, just go to each of the four gospels and look at what Jesus said while he was on the cross. What each gospel writer claims he said differs wildly from the others. That's all you need to know right there. The rest is icing on the cake. No, they were all correct. They were not 'wildly different' they merely quoted different things He said. Some quoted some things and others quoted other things not mentioned by the other writers. Per Ehrman, to figure out what really happened, you don’t read each book linearly. You read them side by side. Leaving aside plagiarism and after-the-fact harmonization, that which is in all the texts is more likely to have happened than that which shows up in just one. And Ehrman is not talking about four books here. He is talking about all the texts that cover the period. Right now, there are approximately 50,000 known ancient biblical texts. Any one of them might have something to say about any of the biblical events. This is actually fascinating stuff! Prior to Ehrman, I had not been exposed to the systematic approach to ancient texts before. Even if we were to believe it’s all God’s word, (which I do not), we would still have to use these methods to find out what the original writers really wrote. These techniques have been developed over thousands of years. It’s just that garden variety Christians like you are not exposed to them. This is why many people fall away from the church after they get to seminary. They learn these analysis techniques and find out things are not so “cut and dried†as they were taught by their pastors. They become disillusioned. Unfortunately, as I wrote earlier, some of these people do not become disillusioned until they have already become pastors and priests. Then, they have a problem because if they share their disillusionment, they lose their jobs, the prestige and sometimes their families. So many just keep quiet about this. It’s actually a sad predicament. I have. I don't believe any of them. Again, there is the experience of seeing the power of the written word and I've seen it (with witnesses) many times. Quote Again, forgery and added in text is more serious. There was no forgery. it is a cheap charge that the skeptics cannot prove. Let me make it easy for you to see through this maze of criticism: Reconciling the Differing post resurrection accounts Here is a possible harmony of the narratives of the resurrection of Christ and His post-resurrection appearances, in chronological order: This from Post #327. In the NIV and other texts, when something wasn’t in the original, it’s italicized. Indeed, in the reference, there is the following footnote. Mark 16:8 Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20) If you look, you can see verses 9-19 are italicized. Mark 16 NIV Per Ehrman, the oldest texts do not contain verses 9 through 19 just as appears in the NIV notes. It would be nice if the NIV clarified that people didn’t like the ending and so they added stuff on. But, it’s clear if you are interested in understanding. Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42). The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (Matthew 27:62-66). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1). An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus appears to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus appears to about 500 disciples in Galilee (1 Corinthians 15:6). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus commissions His disciples (Matthew 28:16-20). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus teaches His disciples the Scriptures and promises to send the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-5). <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Jesus ascends into heaven (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-12) <<Where does this appear in the original Gospel of Mark?>> Finally, I would advise you to take Ehrman's work and throw it out. It is worthless junk. This is standard scholarly thought here. Christians like to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. But this is what happens in centers of higher Christian learning, as I understand it. You don’t coalesce multiple stories together to create one super story. You read each story on its own. You let each writer tell their story. Otherwise, their story gets lost in all the other stories that you mix it with. There is not one Gospel story. There are four. They should be evaluated on their own merit. Also I pray that you will, after all, believe the gospels, accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and be saved from hell fire. All these things happened and they weren’t important enough for Mark to write about them? Where was Mark? These events do not appear in the original Mark16:1-8. The story was harmonized after the fact. Again, you can see this in the footnotes in the NIV. Best wishes. Not only are you a bad scientist. You’re a bad historian and scholar too. But as a Christian, you are great! As a church-going Christian, I had no idea Christians could be as mean as you and others on this web site. It wasn’t until I studied the history of the Christian church at the University of Washington that I learned what the reality can be. And I know, you guys are nowhere as mean as Christians were in the past. You can’t get away with it now as before. One person thought this was because of Newton’s discoveries. Though he himself was very religious, his theories pointed the way toward realizing that you could understand things without God. You don’t need him to push around the planets. You don’t need demons to transmit infections. Physical laws govern movement of heavenly bodies. Bacteria and viruses have evolved to attack us using ingenious mechanisms all by themselves. For that new understanding, I am thankful. God bless you.
  8. svigil777

    Objective Of Discussion

    Response to Post #40 Enoch 2021. I surely understand it...would you like me to write down the same exact thing he said... "PLAINLY"? Do I want you to parrot what Crothers said? No, please don’t. He failed to describe how Einstein’s tensor equation worked. Worse, he used only arm waving to describe why it was wrong. He did not use anything in the way of a mathematical proof to show that it was wrong. I want you to do what he failed to do. Please describe how Einstein’s tensor equation works and what he (Einstein) meant to accomplish with the equation. Next, I want you to prove using mathematical constructs why his equation is wrong. And I just want to underscore the beauty of this scenario. It was Einstein’s work that formed the foundation for creating the bomb that we used to win the Second World War. All our GPS systems depend upon his work in relativity. Einstein is greatly respected to this day. And, if string theory is to be counted as useful, then it has to contend with Einstein’s equations. They cannot be simply swept aside. You are saying not only that Crothers knows how it is that Einstein is wrong. You are saying that you, personally, understand how Einstein’s equation is wrong. That is an impressive fact of the first order if you can show it to be true. Have you taken any classes on tensors? If so, what class at what university? I have not taken tensors. However, I have taken a full year of engineering calculus and analytic geometry. I have taken advanced linear algebra and advanced differential equations at the University of Washington. I also took some linear programming and some multi-variate calculus. But, I didn’t complete those classes. I also took a year of engineering physics and studied the results of quantum mechanics, though I didn’t get into the quantum mechanical derivations themselves. I’ve also studied black holes and string theory from Leonard Susskind of UC Berkeley. Suffice it to say, if you’re giving me balderdash, I’ll know in the first couple lines. If you dare put anything down, I’ll learn tensors if I have to. But, I doubt it’ll take anything more sophisticated than high school algebra to show your error. So go ahead. Take your best shot. The moment I catch your first error, your entire proof is shot to pieces. Go for it.
  9. svigil777

    The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

    E = mc2 Did anyone tell you about the bomb? Mass can be converted to energy. You quoted the law incorrectly. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. See Wiki ref
  10. svigil777

    The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

    You guys just don't get it. This is not a law like congress where you go to jail if you break it. It is an "empirical finding". It's a law that we think we've found until we find an exception. And if we do, then the law needs to be adjusted, augmented or thrown out. But in this case, the law doesn't apply. It's as though you're trying to apply Iranian traffic laws to the US or the UK. A woman may drive in the West. Iranian law simply doesn't apply. I am saying, the second law does not apply. You cannot use it to support the argument against evolution. Here's one form of the 2nd law. In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically enclosed system there are states inaccessible from S.[33] It's a fascinating statement. The way I read that, evolution doesn't seem precluded. But again, it doesn't apply, so it's mute. I am so impressed by the Wiki on this, wow! There is more here than I certainly learned in physics and chemistry. I hope everybody reads this whole page! The way I remember it from chemistry was something like, The entropy, S, of the system is increasing... And that does make it sound like evolution is false. My naive interpretation of that as "The randomness is increasing". But you have to tack on the final part. ... in an adiabatic system. then, that kills the applicability. But note that the law just talks about the net entropy. It does not preclude pockets of order occurring in some isolated place. And that would have to be true if the universe is an adiabatic system. In that case, Earth would be one of those pockets of order, fed by a sun that is dying but not yet dead. Of course, when the sun dies, so will the life. So, the net effect will be disorder. Again, this is an "empirical finding". This isn't dogma. It wasn't written on Moses' tablets. Even if it did say evolution couldn't happen, if we found that evolution indeed occurred, then the "law" would be thrown out. The quote above is Bruce's, BTW, and it is false. I want to laugh. Theists love science if it supports their religion!
  11. Response to #467 Calypsis4 Wrong again. I taught science for 26 years and I was an evolutionist until I was 17. How many times must I type this information before you'll get it? The rules say I can’t challenge you on your credentials. Otherwise, I would ask you where you taught. My guess is you have a teaching certificate and you taught seventh graders. Science… I see no evidence of a science background. You go to church. You sit in a pew. You read the bible. You watch fantastic and salacious shows and then present them as evidence. Then you get on line and people present very interesting and credible stuff. And you denigrate it with balderdash. I wonder how many people believe you make good arguments. That’s a scary thought. The idea of creating a story... a narrative or a model that matches evidence and then writing a testable hypothesis seems so reasonable and natural to me. Then, looking for some sort of a test or something one can find in nature to confirm or invalidate the hypothesis... to you, this is simply a foreign language. And then you quote some passage in Romans and threaten people with hell and damnation. I’m going to trust that people will see through all that. As far as I can tell, the more we get you to talk, Calvsis, the more untenable your position will seem. So, I think people on this web site are doing a great job of getting you to come out from under your rock. I would say, continue to blast away. :^)
  12. I think convincing you guys is more of a psychological problem than it is an evidentiary one. I confess. I don't know how to do it. But I do like the way your posts read. It's like poetry. If we set this one to music, we might be able to have you sing it. I could add in some flugel horn. Calvsis could do something musical, maybe with his science classroom supplies. Enoch, I'll bet he plays the clarinet. piasan probably plays the drums. My sweetheart and I could dance a Tango to it. Maybe we would then make so much money on YouTube royalties we wouldn't care about this anymore!
  13. I quoted you as saying you were an "expert". so, "ixnay" on that one, champ. But we can agree that "pride cometh before the fall". And how about this one? "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," http://biblehub.com/romans/1-22.htm
  14. I'm sure DeMorgan does seem like sophistry to you :^) But I will say I used it to catch errors in requirements for flight code on an airplane that almost everybody flies on. So, "Hurrah for sophistry!"
  15. I feel so silly. In my mind, I was giving Mike W. credit. But it was you, piasan. Ok, so you get the "grey matter" prize for knowing the answer. The answer to my second question is, DeMorgan's theorem. BD assures me I can provide links for references. So, I trust I will not be banished for this. Good job piasan!
  16. We are not allowed to get bogged down in terms on this web site per the rules. So maybe we are done talking on this for now. I don't want to be banished. But you can respond to my post if you wish. The scientific community has been pretty clear on what they think a transitional is. And, I have provided links to show a few examples of how this term can be interpreted to BD and Mike S. We are also not allowed to provide links. Again, I am stymied by the rules as presented to me. But I'm not going to go with the creationist definition of "transitional". Respond if you wish to my original post.
  17. A miracle has occurred! I have found some actual grey matter on the theistic side! Do you remember whose theorem allows us to do this? This isn't just codes. This is manipulations of semantics without losing truth. And really, if you cannot manipulate logical expressions symbolically, you're not an expert. But you did pass the minimum grey matter test. Not to worry... I must admit, however. I did listen to some Harry Potter on the way to the gym. It was in English.
  18. svigil777

    The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

    Ref: #371 Posted 06 April 2015 - 12:03 AM Calypsis4, on 04 Apr 2015 - 11:38 AM, said: driewerf: No, it does not. Quite to the contrary the very first statement made there is: "Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force." That statement is really, really dumb. Entropy is a FORCE....that exists whether it is measured by human beings or not. Two very simple questions: what are the units of force? What are the units of entropy? Tweeeeet! The ref holds up driewerf’s hand in victory. I used to know the answer to both questions. The metric units for force are Newtons. Unfortunately, I forgot the answer to the second (I really hate that!) But there is this really cool new invention called the internet. And there are some dumb and evil people on there called Wikipedia. And even they got this one right. Units for entropy are Joules per Kelvin. So, Calvsis got it wrong (it’s like shooting ducks in a pond!). Entropy is not a force. It is measure of “disorderâ€. Leonard Susskind says it is a measure of information as he relates it to string theory and black holes. I certainly forgot that one. However, I’m confident Calvsis can clear that one up for me cause he was a “science teacher†:^) As much as I hate to throw Calvsis a grain of salt (he never sends me any :^( there was one philosopher who related entropy of a system to the “will†or “intentionality†of the system to reach a certain state. I think one can find him if one is interested by searching on “The Giants of Philosophy: Arthur Schopenhauer - Audiobook†on YouTube. I provided this in the spirit of sharing. It is not required to understand my point. This presentation was put in a cohesive way with a fair degree of understanding. And that demonstrated a much better understanding than Calvsis’ presentation. But to give Calvsis his due grain of salt, entropy can seen to rather loosely relate to what one might term a philosophic definition of force or a “compunction†to get to a particular place or state. This is not to be confused with a teleological “purposeâ€. But there has been a certain “will†proposed by philosophers for the caterpillar to survive or a galaxy to hang together. In the same way, one could anthropomorphize nature and say that it has a “will†or an intentionality to respond to a changing environment in an arms race of continually evolving assemblies of molecules we call organisms. To understand this usage of the term “intentionalityâ€, one could also listen to John Searle, Philosopher, UC Berkley. This just shows how philosophers can make a simple thing made up by scientists into something more complicated. But more seriously, philosophers help scientists by asking the questions that need to be answered. So, when one looks at the philosophic point of view, Calvsis’ quotation could be supported. "Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force." He’s probably going to bite my head off, but I really gave him more than a grain of salt. I threw him a decent and chewy bone. (Good dog, good dog.) Nice job driewerf. I still have your hand raised in victory. You exhibit a scientific command. So now that we have done all this “word smithingâ€, does anyone remember what they were fighting about? It really does help to work out the terms. Otherwise, there is no communication. And I would say that it should be considered “out of bounds†for the creation apologists to take scientifically defined terms redefine them in their own ways to further their own arguments. It’s a thread on thermo and everybody should have a real good handle on what “entropy†means after twenty pages of this jazz, with all due respect to the book of Romans. Hopefully everyone also knows what an “adiabatic†system is. Nobody uses it anywhere on the entire thread. Hopefully it was referred to using some other “layman friendly†term. Again, because of that word, the 2nd Law does not apply folks. You cannot use it to disprove evolution. Sheez, people around here need to take some general science courses. And I don’t mean driewerf. I remember when I was a shiny new Christian, born again… the second time… and I was listening to what was then contemporary gospel music. One of my favorite songs was, “They Will Know Us By Our Loveâ€. Calvsis, I’m not seeing the love! :^)
  19. svigil777

    The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

    Response to #389 I remember I was a young theist when I first saw the 2nd law of Thermo used to support theism. I knew that it was wrong to use it to disprove evolution right away. That was over thirty years ago, but people keep using the same bad arguments! The law only applies in an adiabatic system. I believe I learned that in Chem 140 in 1980. I’m not even looking this one up (well, except for spelling.) The reason this is burned into my brain is because I think it was the first positive and solid evidence I had (aside from evolution itself) that something was amiss in the Christian story. Up until that time, I was a happy camper. I had my new wife. I was a Christian. I had my science classes. I had evolution. Nobody told me on the front end, that I couldn’t be a Christian if I believed evolution was true. So, I didn’t really concern myself with it… until my brethren started trying to insert their religious view in the science classroom! Here I see, Driewerf got it back in #372 “For a closed system†The earth is not a closed system! We have the sun shining down upon us, so the second law does not apply to the earth. Sorry, yet another erroneous attempt to co-opt a perfectly good scientific buzz phrase… shot down.
  20. Mike W, You said you are “an expert in logics.†I learned a long time ago never to call myself an "expert". Now, I let others make their judgements based on my content. In #429 I challenged you. But you did not respond. How can an "expert" not respond? I see the web site interpreted part of my Boolean expression as some sort of an emoticon. So, I’ll re-write and give you a hint. How else can the following be represented? _____ z = x ∙ y _ _ u = s ∙ t Please provide alternative expressions for z and u and describe how you got them. The hint is the following: _ x stands for the “not†operator applied to x. ∙ stands for the “and†operator. + is equivalent to the “or†operator. :^)
  21. Mike W, You challenged me with the following. So then, IF turtles evolved, we would expect as evidence, their transitionals in rocks with rich preservation.(Modus Ponen) We do not find their transitionals, therefore turtles did not evolve. (Modus Tollens) I responded with transitionals in the following. #49 Then you dropped the ball! Where is your response? Do you run away from the tough ones?
  22. Rice has 10,000more genes than people do, 12:00. Trees in Tasmania 43,000 years old, 18:00. Why? https://youtu.be/Q-4w5xYLwiU
  23. Crazy, terrible quality evidence. But I agree, dinos still exist. I showed you on post #411, page 21! I showed you the bird chicks that still had the claws! These were remnant features from their dino past. But were we around during the Jurassic or other such periods. If you have such evidence, cough it up! But please, don't make me laugh any more. My belly's sore!! :^)
  24. The fact that the two size estimates matched is key. Yes, it is an astounding thing. Really, it's quite an accomplishment. I'd like to see the math of the two estimates. Of course, they have to be independent. I'm sure they'd be crucified if they were not. Sadly, not everyone can appreciate such a monumental achievement to isolate the impact site.
  25. This is really cool. You look at this layer with tiny little class pellets (under a microscope) that form in a layer all over the world. This glass can only be formed in certain cataclysmic conditions understood to exist after the collision. It was a bad day for dinos and a good day for mammals, whoo hoo!! (And we're not talking Noah's flood here.) Thanks for the pics and description Mr. StormanNorman

Important Information

Our Terms