Evolution Fairytale Forum

# Ibex Pop

63

## Community Reputation

0 Neutral

• Rank
Junior Member

## Previous Fields

Male
• How old are you?
21
no affiliation
Atheist
• Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
Louisiana, USA

2. ## Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

Well, a gas cloud will inevitably fall together if its cooling capacity and density aren't overtaken by the expansion of space between them, and if there are no objects that gravitationally overcome the cloud (since all the molecules and atoms in the cloud are otherwise bound to each other), and if it is not in stasis (where it is constantly heated to a level beyond collapse but below gravitational disassociation). For making a star, however, the cloud must just have enough fuseable mass in a density capable of collapse. As it falls together it will generate heat preventing more immediate compression, but the density will eventually generate a runaway gravitational collapse in the less-dense surroundings, greatly heating the core as it also becomes opaque. What you said is a pretty accurate summary and it could be modeled and is modeled in Jean's Mass, which will tell you accurately, though not precisely, what clouds can and cannot collapse. Now, since CTD responded, I'll go ahead and address his post: Gravity is not calculated as proceeding from an infinitely dense point, he's trying to confuse the issue. The direction of attraction is always to the center of mass of an object(s), and other matter will fall toward this, without approximation. Gas pressure is not an explicit variable in the case of Jean's Mass because it accounts for gas temperature and density (mass and volume), which makes it capable of deriving the pressure of the system, anyway, but is not used because it would have to be split back down into the variables that are actually used: what is relevant on the molecular level is whether gravity would cause a molecule to fall further than it had energy to rebound in the same time it took to fall. This is literally what it means for gravity to overcome pressure. As to rotation, it is only relevant to rotating systems but it can be accounted for with an additional variable, and is largely irrelevant to whether stars can form in the first place but is important in having an accurate model (and scientists have created far more detailed models, like this and this). Finally, magnetism actually serves a breaking effect against the rotational forces of a collapse (moving charges generate magnetic fields that reduce speed, as it is the actual kinetic energy being converted into the magnetic field), and I couldn't find anymore "hidden" variables that CTD alludes to. If there is anything else, I daresay it is insignificant to the possibility of star formation and only relevant to an exacting model. Oh, and new stars, which are new according to spectrum analysis, absolute magnitude, and solar mass, always appear in nebulae. And dense gas bubbles (gravitationally contracted) appear in nebulae. And many new stars can be seen with halos of dust around them. Go figure. It's because stellar synthesis happens.
3. ## Let's Stack The Deck For Evolution

I'm going to do you a disservice by admitting I did not watch the "Living Fossils" video, because I think I grasp what it would have been about. It is probably about things that have apparently not evolved while others have. But since punctuated equilibrium address that directly, and since indirectly it is addressed by there being no selective pressure that favors more beneficial mutations (which is completely reasonable for an organism is a biological niche), I'm going to count it as addressed unless there is some reason living fossils circumvent my account. I may go back and take another look at this thread but I can't promise anything.
4. ## Resolution On Creationism By The Council Of Europe

Since I have a tendency to use physics for biological analogies, I'll do that here. Creationist: "Show me that all objects that aren't already very close gravitate together! You haven't proven macrogravity!" Ibex: *points at picture of galaxies colliding* Creationist: "Those are already like that, you don't know how they got that way, you haven't observed them actually colliding." Ibex: "But it looks like they're colliding under the force of gravity, doesn't it? I mean it seems reasonable . . ." Creationist: "Maybe, but if it's the sole assumption then it isn't reasonable to say there is macrogravity." Ibex: "Well, OK, how about because we see the restraining effect on the expansion of the universe by what we can only assume is macrogravity." Creationist: "Aha! It's an assumption! See, you're just looking at how things are and then imagining whatever you need to make them that way, without ever proving that the mechanic you imagine actually exists. You know, like scientists do with the fossil record." Ibex: "Uhhh, I guess you're right, something else might be holding them in place or might even have made them specifically with the appearance of being restrained. It might even explain the dark matter that scientists just posit and haven't been able to observe with any electromagnetic energy. The galaxies obviously owe to something that isn't gravity if we cannot find mass to generate it! Scientists ARE just attached to their macrogravity! Thanks for opening my eyes!" Creationist: "And remember to ask them to show you the method next time a scientist tells you something." Ibex: *tips hat* You know the method for evolution. Descent through inheritance with modification via mutation under pressure of natural selection. You should know that each individual item, as well as all these items in tandem, have been observed. I can only surmise that by "showing you the method" you mean that scientists should show you a microbe's progeny eventually evolving into a man. I can only surmise that you think that evolution is something that can only work on a small scale, being microevolution. I can only surmise this is the same attitude held by creationists who want scientists to show them stars forming, where that means they must show the formation from gas cloud to main sequence with direct observation -- just outlining, with many individual images, all stages of stellar formation is no better than evo scientists using transitional forms, right? There is no proof that every image is not something static and completely unrelated, despite it being just what scientists predict. But then, they saw much of that stuff in advance and made up the details of their pet mechanic to fit the bill, so it ought to predict it! It's circular reasoning!! It's no better than crime scene investigation or tectonics! Preposterous that scientists can just look at the evidence and make up anything that fits the bill. Why don't we all listen to the Bible? It says that God made everything and everything is here, so why don't evolutionists believe that? Evolutionists just hate God.
5. ## Resolution On Creationism By The Council Of Europe

It sounds like realism (the philosophy) to me. That we do not have, in any case, the truth, but a good approximation of the truth. Or rather, reality isn't exactly as we describe it, and that truth is a measure of how close our description fits reality; an arbitrarily selected limit at which an approximation of reality can be said to be true. Of course, this leads to a debate of what is real, which is really more apt for another thread.

8. ## Thunderfoot Versus Comfort

Thunderf00t does focus on minor issues, but it's a lot of minor arguments that make a case. Whether a one kilometer thick sheet of ice can serve as a firmament, whether evolution makes things "better" at anything other than being suited to their environment, and (among many more) whether random probability calculations are useful in describing the likelihood of life developing on Earth is very relevant to the case these creationists try to make. While there is no denying that Thunderf00t does a lot of nitpicking, he also soundly debunks many arguments that might otherwise be taken to favor creation. Anyway, AronRa's series on the foundational falsehoods of creationism actually gives a far more thorough view of evolution while mainly tackling what you might consider "larger" issues than physical impossibilities (but AronRa is heavy-handed and extremely critical of religion, which, since it is an examination of personal beliefs that people use to define themselves, sounds insulting to religious viewers -- I know by experience -- when he is actually making an attempt to reach them), CDK007's origins series in combination with many of his other videos actually aims directly at explaining evolution, and DonExodus2's series on how evolution works, as well as transitional fossils are all more apt at making a case for evolution. I'd personally recommend some of CDK007's stuff first. I respect that you'd hardly want to invest so much time in something you wholly believe is false, but seriously, Thunderf00t is not really explaining evolution, just telling you exactly why specific creationist arguments are wrong. Sometimes that demands a little evolutionary background, most of the time, it does not, and all in all, he does not remotely offer the most substantial argument for evolution. If you're interested, I'd start with and . They're not introductions to evolution, but are hopefully ponderous enough to inspire further investigation. Further evidence can be found in these, and a debunk on same-genes-same-creator can be found . If you think that is valid supporting evidence for common descent, I'm sure you can take it further on your own. I considered putting an actual introduction to evolution as a link, as that would be the most relevant in an explanatory sense, but I felt that it might be discarded at once. If you do not know what evolution would predict, then you've already been rejecting it out of hand. If you hold a misconception about it but have the general idea, then you'd probably not watch it anyway (because it would seem superfluous), so the above videos are all about supporting evolution rather than explaining it as a theory in detail. Hopefully you find the links a bit better than Thunderf00t.
9. ## Ken Miller

My bad on the feathers. And I modify my comment to "most fossil evidence supports the theropod origin of birds". I don't know what to make of the bird tracks. These anomalies are very peculiar. I'll just have to wait for the scientists to sort it out. I'm neither a geologist nor a paleontologist, nor even an ornithologist so I have to sit on the sidelines and shrug my shoulders until something changes. I don't think there's anymore evidence that I can bring to the table for now. The rest of my previous post, minus any implication of universal fossil support, stands.
10. ## The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

Notions of what you perceive as order aside, the body would be heated and gain the capacity for thermodynamic work. Now, what that work would amount to would be precious little, seeing as how the support system for all the cells and the complex molecular pathways would have been destroyed, the cells long since having destroyed themselves. Early life does not require a complex support system, but asking whether a body will decay in sunlight, which that body cannot do much work with (it couldn't do much with it while it was alive, either), while it is surrounded and covered in functional micro-organisms hardly demonstrates a problem with the second law of thermodynamics, but a lack of understanding on the part of the person asking the question. Our notions of order aren't even valid when placed up against the actual law, as a body at 9000 degrees has a very high work potential but it does not function as a human. We consist of many areas of lesser and greater energy (and it is not all thermal energy, and thermal energy applied directly back to our body will not regenerate the electrical or chemical activity) and entropy, it is how we function, consuming food for energy, burning phosphorous to keep warm, using oxygen to catalyze sugar into adenosine triphosphate, and a billion other small details. Just heating a human body isn't going to regenerate cell walls or immune systems, the body would not come alive again even if its order increased. Hypothetically, we could turn it into a diamond, which possesses a great deal of order, but it would not be a living human being again. We could turn a diamond into a human, at the cost of order but at a massive gain in complexity. Popular notions of order and entropy are best left to simple domains where complexity is not required. Trying to apply your impression of what an ordered human is against a dead simulacrum possessing a high heat gradient is just silly.

12. ## Boyle's Gas Law, What is it?

Not at all. Although we can get into statistical mechanics, advanced thermodynamics and all kinds of stuff beyond my comprehension, the important part is simple enough. As a gas cools, it exerts less pressure. All objects down to atoms are gravitationally attracted to each other, and gravity will collapse these objects until a repulsive force doesn't permit further collapse The gravitational force in a vacuum will equal out with repulsive pressure, keeping a gaseous object at the same size so long as it is kept at the same temperature. All that is required of a cloud to become a star is that it have great enough density to become opaque and the frictional forces in the cloud core not be able to heat the whole cloud into transparent dissipation but still be able to heat to core to the point of fusion. Given the size of stellar nurseries, this isn't a problem. In fact, Jupiter is a fine example despite being a planet. It is still emitting twice as much heat as it receives, due to its thermal opacity and the fact its gravitational collapse far exceeded its ability to heat up to a uniform repulsive pressure on its outer bounds (its core was raging but its gravity was still piling on more than it could possibly force off, as a result it is still cooling). This is in line with what would be required of a forming star (thermal retention, inability to uniformly heat and thus expand to a density of less significance -- Jupiter's core may still be 43,000 degrees). Now, combine this with the fact that there are apparently younger stars (which consist mostly of interstellar medium instead of fused materials) and older stars (the difference in each revealed by spectrum analysis), and it's a safe bet for any naturalist that stars have been forming since the universe came to exist. Additionally, we've observed what looks like protoplanetary disks and stellar clouds in nebulae that nebular hypothesis fits very well. You want to know the problems with nebular hypothesis? How planetesimals form, how gas giants form, where the angular momentum from the protoplanetary disk is passed to, and just how planets migrate into stable orbits. Stellar formation is understood, and none of the popular creationist websites are willing to suggest that stars cannot form, so this reads like a "yeah, I know this one law that you didn't think of!" where in the case of electrons, the Abraham-Lorentz force would cause an electron to rapidly lose speed and fall into the nucleus. "So how do electrons supposedly orbit a nucleus without all of that funny unproven quantum evolutionist trash?" I'm wondering how much longer this topic will remain, or how much more will be called into doubt because it is science. I have a hard time believing creationists apply the same skepticism to the Bible as they do anything that disagrees with it. "How do you know that? Show me one observation that isn't biased!"