Originally posted by stockenNo, it just takes a miracle from god for them to bond, the non-intelligent energies of the electrons and the heat from collision can't cause increased complexity. Or so I'm told🙄
So a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms combined doesn't make
carbon dioxide? Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhich Professor of Biochemistry were you quoting and can you give a reference?
Where did I say that?
A stupid question does not make a statement false.
The statement I quoted was made by a Professor of Biochemistry. The fact that you think it is false does not make it false.
If you use the gray matter between your ears you will realize that something can only break down till it is in its simplest possible form. That is just ...[text shortened]... I think of it, he might just as well have added that so that you could understand what he means.
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf a stupid question can prove a statement false then the statement must be stupid as only a stupid person would not see immediately that the statement is false.
Where did I say that?
A stupid question does not make a statement false.
The statement I quoted was made by a Professor of Biochemistry. The fact that you think it is false does not make it false.
It doesn't really matter who you quoted, the statement is still false. You yourself have proved it by answering my apparently stupid question.
If you use the gray matter between your ears you will realize that something can only break down till it is in its simplest possible form.
Agreed. That is why your claim was so stupid.
That is just pure logic which need not have been added to the Professors statement, but now that I think of it, he might just as well have added that so that you could understand what he means.
I am afraid it most definitely would need to be added to the statement. Even so I could have still shown the statement to be false even if you do add such a qualification. It would be trivial to find a compound which could break down into two simpler compounds with an input of energy but would not if left to itself as an energy input is required.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou clearly no nothing about chemistry and so I wont bother proceeding with any of your other hilarious claims, and you opinions on abiogenesis are worthless.
Until you can prove to me that it is possible I would say it is not possible.
You have effectively just said: "Until you can prove to me that it is possible , I will say that it is not possible for chemical reactions to happen."
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is a nice way of avoiding the question. With that impressive goose-step in your armory, I would say that you should immediately replace Dan Carter in Saders starting line-up for the rest of the Super 14.
You tell me, it's your hypothesis.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzProfessor Isaac Asimov:
What?! I STILL have no idea what you're talking about. Still, neither do you, so at least I've got company.
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Ring a bell?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, yes I know. You are right. You have a maths degree from the university of Zambia, you should should know more about chemistry than a professor of biochemistry...
If a stupid question can prove a statement false then the statement must be stupid as only a stupid person would not see immediately that the statement is false.
[b]The statement I quoted was made by a Professor of Biochemistry. The fact that you think it is false does not make it false.
It doesn't really matter who you quoted, the statement is st ...[text shortened]... mpounds with an input of energy but would not if left to itself as an energy input is required.[/b]
Tell me another joke.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you just trying to act stupid or do you seriously think that all elements will react with one another?
You clearly no nothing about chemistry and so I wont bother proceeding with any of your other hilarious claims, and you opinions on abiogenesis are worthless.
You have effectively just said: "Until you can prove to me that it is possible , I will say that it is not possible for chemical reactions to happen."
But then again you and yo Maths degree know more about Chemistry than the Professor of Biochemistry that I quoted. So I will graciously leave you to rule of roost of the retards.
So long fella.
Originally posted by dj2beckerDid I say I knew better than the professor you quoted? I missed that. The quote you gave is not equivalent to the claims you made.
Yes, yes I know. You are right. You have a maths degree from the university of Zambia, you should should know more about chemistry than a professor of biochemistry...
Tell me another joke.
You just have a hard time admitting that you are wrong.
One of Creationism's favorite canards is that Evolution can't be true because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A full refutation of this moonshine would have an extremely soporific effect on the general reader and could even put a scientist to sleep. Within my understanding of Thermodynamics, I will attempt to explain the argument in as straightforward and intelligible a manner as possible. Most of the engineers I know, when they first heard this argument, scratched their heads and said "Huh? Evolution and thermodynamics don't have anything to do with each other" And they don't, but you can judge for yourself.
In layman's terms, thermodynamics states that when a hot body is brought into thermal contact with a cold body, the hot body cools and the cold body warms up. The same is true of pressure. A gas will always migrate from an area of high pressure to one of low pressure. (You can feel the effects of that in Albuquerque when there is a high pressure system on the other side of the mountains and a low to the west. The winds through the mountain passes at these times are a marvel to behold.) The Second Law states that whenever two systems are not in thermodynamic equilibrium, work can be produced. If the systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium, no work can be done. The Second Law tells us how to calculate the theoretical efficiency of a heat engine. Finally, and this may seem obvious, but it is impossible to merely extract heat from a source and produce work, you must have a reservoir that is colder than the source into which to expel heat.
The Second Law leads us to the concept of entropy. Entropy is defined as the amount of heat entering or leaving a body reversibly, divided by the body's absolute temperature (Kelvin Scale.) If heat enters a body, entropy is positive, if it leaves entropy is negative. It is the Creationist view that entropy is always positive. Positive entropy equates to greater disorder in a closed irreversible system. For instance, if salt is dropped into a glass of water, the structure of the salt crystals will dissolve and the salt molecules will become more disordered. No amount of waiting will suffice to have the salt dissociate itself from the water. Therefore, say Creationists, Evolution is impossible because it says that life forms have increased in complexity over time when it is the natural order of things for complexity to decrease and disorder to increase. The Creationists claim that before the "Fall" God kept entropy at bay and disorder did not increase with time. After the fall everything started to age. Rather imaginative, don't you think?
This bit of pseudoscience is refuted by the facts. First of all entropy only increases irreversibly in a closed system. The Universe as a whole is a closed system for there is neither a source from which energy can be introduced nor a sink into which energy can be expelled. The Earth, on the other hand is an open system, and receives energy constantly from the sun and produces abundant energy from its molten core. It likewise expels heat out into space. Entropy is constantly being reversed all the time here on Earth. The refrigeration cycle is a good example of negative entropy, a tray of ice cubes is order itself, the formation of snowflakes is another. While I'm not sure of the exact Thermodynamic processes involved in the development of a single celled zygote into a human baby, you can be sure that the end result is more complex than the starting point and represents a definite decrease in entropy. If you put the above mentioned glass of water in front of a window and let the Sun shine on it, the water would eventually evaporate leaving the salt once more in a solid condition. If this didn't happen rain would be salty.
Creationists are not satisfied that religion holds the preeminent spot in the world in discussion of morals and ethics. For the Creationist the Bible must be literally true if the moral message is true. This is very unfortunate since it leads them to stretch scientific facts to the breaking point and invent fanciful "Theories" to try to reconcile the Bible with the real world. Most mainstream religions have come to the conclusion long ago that the Bible stories are meant to convey lessons and are not to be taken literally.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/MACPHE3.html