1 edit
Originally posted by LangtreeNo. You are wrong. The 2nd law only applies to closed systems (well, "isolated" ones anyway - but they are pretty much synonymous). Go away and read a book or two.
The Second Law applies to open or closed; but in an open system as input of energy increases and so does entropy, you can't escape this universal law.
I don't know why people insist on resisting this point, it has been proven time and again in Science, perhaps its because they refuse to acknowledge the truth of science for the lie of evolution. Evolution is terminally ill.
Originally posted by LangtreeBut your "facts", as far as I have seen, are not scientific (or correct). Sorry, but Tel is absolutely correct here - why not go along and ask your local university lecturer to explain it to you - you obviously allowed your local parishioner to explain creationism.
If you are attempting to taunt me, you are only bringing discredit to yourself. You are not participating in an argument, you are only attacking my position with irrational rhetoric. This is not unlike most of your kind. One can't reason with someone who is unwilling to listen to scientific facts. So why don't just leave the intellectual discussions to the ...[text shortened]... lligent, ok? Grow up. I think you come here to look for a fight, not intelligent discussions.
Originally posted by stevenv76So, in essence, what you are saying here is "because most the rest of the universe is very very cold (deep space) it cannot be warm here." Well, that's a whole lead of central heating companies in trouble then!!!
Ok, so entropy is increasing in (n-1)/n of the universe while it is stable or even decreasing in 1/n of the universe.
I don't know, it seems difficult to accept that such a disproportioantely large part of a system would leave the rest of the system unaffected. Especially before the emergence of human intelligence. We do a lot to organize the world around us, but even with our intelligence can we resist this "almost" universal phenomena?
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow come it seems everybody seems to know my background;you are very presumptuous, especially since you have been wrong, you only exposing your ignoranc, and detract from your credibility. You don't know how to present a logically valid argument, but you certainly are very capable at heaping on the insults. Whether you accept my credentials is irrelevent, and I don't debate evolutionists, because there are already enough Christian evangelical creationists are exposing evolution for the lie that it creates. I was an evolutionist 31 years ago, until I took a class in Anthropology through the University of Maryland; the professor raised more questions then he had answered. After that I did some personal research. I read Darwin's Origins of the Species, A book by G. Gaylord Simpson, and other evolutionists. To be objective as anyone should be, I read some creationist materials; it became obvious that although evolutionists boast they are doing science, that statement doesn't stand up under closer scrutiny. Evolution like creationism are both theories about origins. The difference is evolutionists base their theory on unobservable and unrepeatable events. One cannot recreate an event that had no eye witnesses, it is simply speculation. What I began to admire about the creationists was there forth right honesty, and politeness, which is certainly lacking on the part of evolutionists to include this group. I have expressed my views, I stand in complete and utter confidence that Creationism is more consistent with the observable evidence then is evolution. Science demands empirical evidence, evolution has never and will never produce any. That is a fact, reject as you will, but it doesn't alter the truth. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
But your "facts", as far as I have seen, are not scientific (or correct). Sorry, but Tel is absolutely correct here - why not go along and ask your local university lecturer to explain it to you - you obviously allowed your local parishioner to explain creationism.
Here's a few follow-up questions to the one I asked at the very start of all of this:
Why is that people who reject evolution, and attempt to give scientific sounding rejections of it, will then use other scientific models/theories, such as thermodynamics, to do so?
Why do evolutionary rejectionists seem to often display so little understanding of scientific principles and yet vehemently support their position?
And, getting back to my original question:
What's wrong with evolution?
Or if you like, putting it another way, why does the model of evolutionary change in species seem to fill some people with so much horror?
Originally posted by LangtreeSO you are rejecting evolution because I'm rude. Perfect christian logic.....
How come it seems everybody seems to know my background;you are very presumptuous, especially since you have been wrong, you only exposing your ignoranc, and detract from your credibility. You don't know how to present a logically valid argument, but you certainly are very capable at heaping on the insults. Whether you accept my credentials is irrelevent, a ...[text shortened]... a fact, reject as you will, but it doesn't alter the truth. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.
Originally posted by Bad wolfDoes the open system of your body break down over time?
I would think that my body is an open system, because I eat food and get useful biochemical energy from it (energy from plants and animals that ultimately get their energy from the sun).
I am always gettin this useful energy from the sun and this is why (I would think) I am an open system not closed.
The waste products that are made from the chemical reactions are of course excreted.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionSo what does open or closed systems have to do with evolution and
Yes, when you stop breathing and your metabolic reactions end.
life when someone says the earth is not a closed system? Seems like
it does not really matter when we are talking about life now does it?
You may as well say people can fly using their arms and hands only,
because apples have seeds in them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't know what it has to do with evolution.
So what does open or closed systems have to do with evolution and
life when someone says the earth is not a closed system? Seems like
it does not really matter when we are talking about life now does it?
You may as well say people can fly using their arms and hands only,
because apples have seeds in them.
Kelly
It's an argument anti-evolutionists like to trot out evry now and then ...
2 edits
Originally posted by LangtreeLang,
If you are attempting to taunt me, you are only bringing discredit to yourself. You are not participating in an argument, you are only attacking my position with irrational rhetoric. This is not unlike most of your kind. One can't reason with someone who is unwilling to listen to scientific facts. So why don't just leave the intellectual discussions to the ...[text shortened]... lligent, ok? Grow up. I think you come here to look for a fight, not intelligent discussions.
I know you. You should chill. I am not taunting you at all. I will say that you have already demonstrated a misconception of basic physics. That's okay. I'm not a physical scientist either. I'm just admonishing you to tone down on the arrogance.
I have made my point to stevenv. I think that unless your arguments begin to show some signs of listening, learning, and adapting, I'll just ignore you. Trust me. I have far more interesting things to do in my life than bash heads with some one on the internet. It's not fun for me anymore.
Edit: Lang, consider this. If you did go down to the local university and asked a physicist whether the 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes evolution, and (s)he told you that it does not. Would you be willing to admit that you are wrong on this one? I mean your faith would still be intact, right? This one false argument against evolution is hardly an essential component of your spiritual doctrine.
Originally posted by KellyJaystevenv76 brought up Entropy as an arguement against Evolution. Which might make sense if the Earth was a closed system. It's not. Don't blame people for setting him right.
So what does open or closed systems have to do with evolution and
life when someone says the earth is not a closed system? Seems like
it does not really matter when we are talking about life now does it?
You may as well say people can fly using their arms and hands only,
because apples have seeds in them.
Kelly
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
Originally posted by XanthosNZSomebody doesn't understand the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the result of energy being used, if the system is open more energy is introduced, and entropy increases. Entropy is inexorable, even Isaac Asimov admitted that
stevenv76 brought up Entropy as an arguement against Evolution. Which might make sense if the Earth was a closed system. It's not. Don't blame people for setting him right.
in" the Laws of Thermodynamics: You can't even break even." It still stands science flies in the face of evolution. Evolution is TERMINALLY ILL.