Posted on 08/03/2005 5:58:11 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"What's your degree in? Dentistry?"
"What hypotheses do Young Earth Creationists employ to predict a Microwave Background Radiation of 3 degrees?"
Wonder who it was that started that false doctrine that the earth was young, it sure did not come from the Bible????
Dishonest or dumb? I report; you decide.
I have no background here, but what is the problem with considering either the solar system or the universe as a closed system? Does energy lost via friction and heat become unrecoverable?
Which statement shows that you have no understanding of thermodynamics. The Laws of Thermodynamics in no way contradict evolution. The key term is "localized order". That the entropy of the UNIVERSE tends to a maximum does NOT mean that smaller systems cannot become more "ordered". This happens because the localized system uses more energy to generate the "order". A non-biological example---crystal growth.
Just how many times does this falicy need to be explained on FR? Why haven't you read any of the crevo threads where this is discussed?
The short answer is that the 2nd LoT involves a *closed* system. And the earth is NOT a closed system. It gains considerable energy from the sun, and that is where the 2nd LoT argument against evolution completely falls apart.
Just like all the other arguments against evolution have fallen apart, for 150 years.
Neither. "The earth is not a closed system" is correct and does NOT contradict the comment "our solar system can be treated as a closed system". Why---because the SUN is a major source feeding external energy into/onto the earth's "systems". However, the "solar system" has no such large external energy source.
The problem is that including the sun, which is external to the earth, when trying to apply the second law of thermodynamics to evolution on earth (which is what is being discussed), is dishonest. To put it another way, the sun is an external (to the earth), source of energy, and the second law applies only to closed systems. By using "the solar system," as "the closed system," the writer dishonestly (or dumbly), changes the rules of the game in mid-stream.
Does energy lost via friction and heat become unrecoverable?
Sorry, I don't see what this has to do with evolution.
My point -- see the bolding in the part of the article I quoted -- was that the author was being dishonest or dumb in conflating the two.
Could you be afraid that if evolution is true, then the Bible is false and you'll spend eternity not existing?
No, it's simple and correct science. Just tracing the energy flows in the thermodynamic system. It's kind of difficult to deny that the energy from the sun drives much of what happens on earth (and not just for living systems, either).
Since they are both theories, how does it really matter?
No. Wrong. The author was CONTRASTING the two, as there is a major thermodynamic difference between them.
I don't think those questions are relevant to the current topic of Creationism because of what the Leaders of the Creationist Movement have themselves said.
ID'ers are always saying (such as the Leader of the DISCOVERY INSTITUTE that I watched a month back discussing this topic on C-SPAN), "Creationism has nothing to do with Religion! We are merely putting forth an alternate Theory of how the Universe came into being that we feel is equally as valid a Theory as the Theory of Evolution".
Therefore the original topic of Creationism has NOTHING to do with Religion and your question is nonsensical.
To put it more bluntly: I wish these Creationist whack-jobs would get their stories straight. They are totally inconsistent at EVERY turn in what they say during their arguments.
Nonetheless, I will NOT see the Creationist Trolls destroy the Conservative Movement NOR will I see them destroy FreeRepublic.
I will defend this site against their insidious attempts to undermine its reputation.
However, to answer your original questions: 'No' and 'Yes'.
Hope this helps,
~The Doc
No. I am a Ph.D. in Biochemisty and Molecular Biology working at a major US university doing Medical Research.
Whats your job?
But that doesn't apply only to the Darwinists. That applies to both sides, IMHO.
Shalom.
Premise: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) is the Silver Bullet against the Theory of Evolution. It is, indeed, a central stake through the philosophical heart of the atheist who must leave God out of the picture.
In light of the premise, I read the author's comments on the second law in reference to the earth, and then in the next sentence, the solar system, as an attempt at bait & switch.
Sorry, I don't see what this 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 really don't have the background and it strikes me that if energy can be irretrieveably lost due to friction and heat, even in a closed system, then there is at least a modicum of possibility in alternate theories to the theories being put out.
No need to get too defensive, I'm sure not the person to disprove any of these threories, I just soak up info as it comes to help me formulate my own opinions.
The problem is when a gap is filled by "God did it" claim. Our ancestors had countless gaps filled by acts of God, gods, or demons. Science filled most of these gaps with knowledge. If the Hand of God was not ultimately needed to explain all these countless gaps in knowledge, why do we need to ask for it when we discover new gaps in knowledge?
Oh my. Two topocs i try not to get into here are Evolution and the Civil War. But here goes, on #1:
From what I remember of high-school science, the scientific method starts with observing and investigating known facts and working to find a model that explains those facts. Constant new observation, testing, and adjustment of the model (or hypothesis) are required. And the inquiry should start out with no preconceived notions.
Religious faith ("that which passes all understanding") is a different matter. One cannot "disprove" the existence of God, although some have tried. It explains what science cannot - and there is a lot it can't explain.
Science without a spiritual sense is very dangerous and destructive.
Just my two cents.
Actually the silver bullet against their argument is that if the 2nd LoT contradicts evolution there is no good reason why it doesn't contradict all of chemistry as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.