Designs on Us. Conservatives on Darwin vs. ID.

NRO ^ | 8/3/05 | David Klinghoffer

[cvq3842]

topocs = topics

[Gumlegs]

I wasn't defensive, really. I don't see what lost energy due to friction and heat has to do with evolution.

It was in reference to applicability in closed systems - regardless, there must be an answer, it wasn't a trick question.

I suppose there is, but I don't know it. I will note, however, that the earth is not a closed system.

Perhaps the superhero to ask about your questions would be WonderWarthog (the hog of steel); see his posts to me on this thread.

I'm also pinging Physicist on this. Perhaps he can shed some light (or heat. What the hell, they're both energy).

[Gumlegs]

Now if we could only pass a law about that stinkin' Krebbs cycle ...

[Always Right]

Existence of the gaps is normal and essential in our quest for knowledge, and it is not a problem.

It is a problem when gaps aren't identified and the theory that is used to fill those gaps are presented as unapproachable facts.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Wonder who it was that started that false doctrine that the earth was young, it sure did not come from the Bible...

After studying the bible in depth. The Bible does support a younger earth theory in my opinion based upon what the text states with consistency.

[Citizen Tom Paine]

Think non-equilibrium thermodynamics. While it is not appropriate here, there is (and has been) a lot of discussion on whether the 2nd Law holds for the Universe. That discussion is even more obtuse than the one for evolution.

[Just mythoughts]

"After studying the bible in depth. The Bible does support a younger earth theory in my opinion based upon what the text states with consistency."


I have no basis to measure your depth, however Genesis 1:1 declares "In the "BEGINNING" God created the heaven and the earth.

We are not told when this "the beginning" was, nowhere in the Written word is there a specific time give. We however in place after place are given a glimpse about what occurred after the "the beginning", which in no way describes a young earth.

When was the devil created, and when did the devil decide he was going to be "god", and convinced a third of God's children he could be "god"? That happened according to what is written and it is no where described in the days of the clean-up of the earth and the creation of man in the flesh, described in Genesis 1:3.....

We have no idea exactly how long ago the beginning was, this earth is filled with evidence that it is not a young place. Only man in the flesh can be given an approximate date. By the way when were the souls created?

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks, but this thread isn't worth a ping to the list.

[Alter Kaker]

Reasonably, our solar system can be treated as a closed system for most ordinary thermodynamic studies.

This is absolutely true if you consider that the sun is gradually burning off its hydrogen, by far the largest force in the solar system. The whole solar system is not at issue, however, we're talking about life on Earth. And the earth is not a closed system in any respect, so localized entropy is not a factor.

This reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall, where Alvie Singer is depressed because the universe is expanding into nothingness, and his mother has to calm him down saying, "Brooklyn is not expanding!"

[Just mythoughts]

"Thanks, but this thread isn't worth a ping to the list."


LOL, proclaiming a bit of judgment now are you????

[GarySpFc]

Mike claims the solar system is closed, and I guarantee you he has far more credentials in this respect than you. I have seen him debate this issue many times, and everyone to date has gone away with their tails between their legs. Would you like to debate him on line?

[Mogollon]

Except you made an error a college freshman wouldn't have -- the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems. The Earth, heated daily by the sun, is not a closed system.

Better re-read the article....he defined the solar system as a closed system for all practical purposes involving the 1st & 2nd Laws.

[Gumlegs]

This reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall, where Alvie Singer is depressed because the universe is expanding into nothingness, and his mother has to calm him down saying, "Brooklyn is not expanding!"

Indeed, one can make the argument that after the 1957 season, Brooklyn has been contracting.

[Alter Kaker]

Mike claims the solar system is closed, and I guarantee you he has far more credentials in this respect than you.

I'd be happy to concede for the sake of argument that the solar system is de facto closed, even though that's not really true. But that's totally irrelevent, because the Earth -- where life evolved -- isn't even remotely closed. You're confusing localized realities with generalized trends. For the Earth to be closed, it would not be able to receive any net radiation, and I'll wager you a large orb of thermonuclear hydrogen that it does.

BTW, I doubt very seriously that you want to make this a question of credentials. I've studied both biology and physics on the post-graduate level, something I seriously doubt you have done.

[GarySpFc]

I was putting Mike's credentials up against your's, and he has graduate degrees in physics as a rocket scientist (engineer). He currently works on Tomahawk missiles.

[js1138]

From this perspective, a main evolutionary-psychological impulse that drives males in particular is the drive to fight off rivals. For rivals threaten to reduce our access to reproductive assets — namely, women — by lowering our status in a social hierarchy.

Anyone who starts an essay with a demonstrably false statement is going nowhere.

[js1138]

... everything winds down like a clock ...

And what law of physics allows clocks to be rewound? Or does the winding of a clock violate fundamental laws?

Think about this.

[Junior]

Ping.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks, but I've already decided to bypass this thread. It's not for the list.

[Junior]

The first and second laws of Thermodynamics (basically life comes only from life and everything winds down like a clock - going from order to disorder) blow the theory of evolution out of the water. All scientists that I have heard of or read about fully endorse both laws. Can they not see the hypocrisy??? You cannot believe either Law of Thermodynamics (1st or 2nd) and embrace the Theory of Evolution.

Please avail yourself of the actual wording and meaning of the Laws of Thermodynamics before you make a fool of yourself on these threads. Even AIG says this is an argument creationists should no longer use.