Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A column about Kansas Science Standards
EducationNews.org ^ | November 14, 2005 | State Board Chairman Steve Abrams, DVM

Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-281 next last
To: From many - one.

Yeah, but I think yeast creeps in somewhere in Leviticus.

Unleavened bread and all.

Perhaps you have unknowingly hit upon the real reason for the dietary restriction.


101 posted on 11/14/2005 10:01:35 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


102 posted on 11/14/2005 10:04:33 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
...He spent 18 years in biochemical research, including three years at Cornell University Medical College, four years at the Virus Laboratory, UC-Berkeley, and eleven years with the Upjohn Company...

I am certainly not Dr. Gish's agent or apologist, but, his career does seem to include practical application of science. Whether or not that qualifies as "actual accomplishments in science" I don't know...but I think it is worth considering.

103 posted on 11/14/2005 10:07:50 AM PST by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
My staunch "evolution explains everything" prof for my undergrad evolutionary biology course said there was a distinction.

Please explain to me, in your own words, the distinction between "micro" and macro" evolution. Then please explain to me what force or forces prevents enough microevolutionary changes from summing into macro change.
104 posted on 11/14/2005 10:16:52 AM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: KMJames
Whether or not that qualifies as "actual accomplishments in science" I don't know...but I think it is worth considering.

I agree, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm sure Gish has a lot of expertise in specific area(s) of biochemistry, but that doesn't de facto make him an expert at the subject of evolution. I know for certain he's made comments about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that are outright erroneous.

In any case, none of his broad opinions on evolution have made it into any peer-reviewed journals or literature. When someone bypasses the opinions of trained experts and takes their ideas straight to the public or press, as Gish is well-known for doing, it's a good sign that there's something awry with the science.

105 posted on 11/14/2005 10:20:51 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
...none of his broad opinions on evolution have made it into any peer-reviewed journals or literature...

Perhaps so, I really don't know. But, you have me wondering about his opinions relating specifically to biochemistry and evolution. I may look into that myself...unless someone here is already up to speed on Gishism and can post links to that information, should it exist.

106 posted on 11/14/2005 10:30:10 AM PST by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

He looks fine, and yes he disagrees with the god of naturalism ...

Where are you on that?

Wolf


107 posted on 11/14/2005 10:31:07 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

To: KMJames
Its only real if they bow before the alter of evo-cultism.

Wolf
109 posted on 11/14/2005 10:39:33 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
It is not what the theory of evolution 'says' that is so important, more it is as what the evolutionists say with their arguments, and that is

The argument from evolution is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God. It is based upon the premise: Science provides sound explanations for the origin and diversity of life, and the origin of the Universe.

(weaknees)
Do any of the 'scientists' here deny that? I say not, I challenge them to prove me wrong.

Wolf

110 posted on 11/14/2005 10:48:34 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

You mean it really isn't there?

Work of the Devil?

Genesis is interesting for what it leaves out: mosses, ferns, fungi

Sort of as if God was not writing a biology textbook but addressing people in a fairly dry environment, in terms they could understand.

Same for the "days" of Creation...was He supposed to explain lightyears?


111 posted on 11/14/2005 10:54:11 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

> he disagrees with the god of naturalism ...

Huh. Well, some people do like to imagine gods and other mythical critters, even if only to disagree with them...


112 posted on 11/14/2005 11:08:21 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
The argument from evolution is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God.

No. Many of us who acknowledge the sound science behind evolution also believe in God, a God ultimately responsible for all existence.

It is based upon the premise: Science provides sound explanations for the origin and diversity of life, and the origin of the Universe.

True. This does not imply our description of these phenomena are 100% complete, though. They are, however, tremendously successful in both their predictive nature and in providing a consistent framework describing life on earth. We do not know everything about the origin of the universe, or about the origin of life of on earth and its subsequent evolution, but we know a great deal.

Funny though, that the cartoon you repeatedly post, showing atoms turning into people, looks more like a parody of creationism than of evolution. Evolutionary science actually has thousands of explanatory links from a myriad of different lines of inquiry leading to a consistent model that couldn't possibly fit on a single diagram.

113 posted on 11/14/2005 11:21:22 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

Isn't there some counter cartoon that shows a blackboard with complex formulas with "and then a miacle happens" inserted?


114 posted on 11/14/2005 11:24:17 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

They could be the same cartoon, for all I know. It's easy to build and then knock over a strawman, though.


115 posted on 11/14/2005 11:27:05 AM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

I deny the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life, for that matter.

As repeatedly stated here by many, Darwin's book was called "Upon the Origin of SPECIES."

His theory starts with existing life and describes how the form of life changed. It does not delve into origin.

Indeed, his theory is completely compatable with the God of Abraham whose Son is Jesus, the Christ breathing the first life into the first beings (whatever they were).


116 posted on 11/14/2005 11:51:32 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
And amazingly, he doesn't seem to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or he deliberately distorts it - I'm not sure which).

And are you going to deny an honest to goodness rocket scientist doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (SLOT) and its Application to Evolution December 1999

(Updated June 2005, July 07 2005; July 24 2005)

Michael S. Shelton

Stafford, VA

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.

The physical universe can be explained in many ways using various mathematical relations, equations and laws. We have developed a number of mathematical relationships to describe gravity, place objects in orbit, fly Martian explorations, and operate submarines. We use thermodynamic laws and relationships to build steam turbines, gasoline internal combustion engines, and predict how much electrical current will be needed to cool a certain-sized building each day in summer.

The same thermodynamic laws can describe the operation of biological life. Although the operation and life of a rabbit differs from a Ford V-8 engine, the foundational principles of the Zeroth, First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics are the same. These Laws are easily found and investigated by normal web search methods. Of interest to us, however, are the First and Second Laws, particularly the Second Law.

To build a designed device (say, a refrigerator), energy input from the First Law must be manipulated correctly through the process of the Second Law (SLOT) to craft the device. We need energy, a plan, information, a sense of project, and tools to build the device. During the process, the overall disorder (entropy), or randomness, of the Universe increases, with a local decrease in entropy when the refrigerator is finally assembled. In other words, the various raw materials and components are brought together from their random, haphazard locations and placed into a highly-specified order that gives us a useful device to store cold water, hamburger meat, and ice cream. We have now gone through a complete thermodynamic cycle to harness the stored energy and raw materials. Simply pouring / adding non-directed energy to the components with no manner of manipulating the process won¡¯t produce a refrigerator, or whatever you have in mind.

As I stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, the overall disorder (entropy), or randomness, of the Universe has increased. Although we have a finished product, the ancillary processes used to obtain the raw materials, cut the metal, mold the rubber trim, and charge the refrigerant are accompanied by frictional losses, noise, and waste. Most of these processes result in losses that cannot and will never be regained in the form of stored energy to be used again. This points directly to the idea that something / Someone had to have provided the Original Sources of potential, usable energy. Next, the idea that a plan is needed to assemble a usable device points to a designer. For biological life, this points to a Designer. Raw, inorganic matter, regardless of how much it is irradiated with the sun or heat from a thermal vent, does nothing to cause autoorganization of the matter into the building blocks of life, and then, into the numerous proteins and cells that comprise a living being.

The Second Law is expressed mathematically as:

dS = dQ/T Entropy change is denoted as ¡®dS¡¯ and is always ¡Ý 0. ¡®dQ¡¯ is the incremental energy state change / increase

Further,

dSR = dQR/T, where the term ¡®QR¡¯ indicates application to a reversible process - reversible connotes we can do a process and return to the original state with no change in entropy to the system and/or surroundings. Some parts of processes are reversible, but not the entire process.

1. In a reversible and closed-cycle process, the entropy change is equal to the change in heat or energy transfer divided by the temperature of the system or process. This temperature ¡®T¡¯ (¡°absolute temperature¡± in either degrees Rankine or Kelvin, as applicable) is usually the temperature of the environment that any process occurs in or exhausts into. dQ = dE + dW, where ¡®E¡¯ represents thermal or kinetic energy and ¡®W¡¯ represents work.

2. Entropy can be further broken down into dS = dSe + dSi, where subscript ¡®e¡¯ is the reversible component of the process, and subscript ¡®i¡¯ is the irreversible component and lost forever. dSi represents irreversible effects (friction, internal hysteresis, sound waves, electromagnetic waves, etc.).

3. An example is the exhaust energy radiated from the engine of a car and through its tailpipe. Most of the combustion process is lost as unused heat transfer, not utilized in operating the mechanical components of the car. It is permanent and irreversible. Another example is heat generated by a human undergoing physical exercise. The heat is radiated, convected or conducted away and lost forever. To replenish the lost energy, the human must eat. The car must be refueled

4. Back to dS = dSe + dSi. The dSe part we recover. But it comes at a price, always accompanied by dSi. Additionally, dSe nearly always requires an intelligent mechanism, a design, a plan, information, a code, to be accomplished. dSi requires no code or design, such as the burning of a forest after a lightning strike, or the nuclear furnace of a star. They simply transform potential energy into kinetic energy and exhaust / transfer directly into their surroundings randomly. To further harness that wasted energy, a device intelligently planned and intelligently operated must be employed.

EXAMPLE 1: A tank of water is on a mountain peak (for the moment, let¡¯s ignore how the water got there). The tank bursts and the water runs down to the valley below. At the bottom, the water remains there. If this water was not employed to run turbines or other devices, then the process is a pure conversion from potential energy to kinetic energy. Once all the sloshing at the bottom of the hill ceases, the potential energy of the water is zero. We still have the water, it has not been removed from the system, but it has achieved a useless state. Under these conditions, maximum entropy (randomness) has been achieved, and will remain thus unless acted upon from outside the system. We could construct a mechanism to fully funnel the water down a tube or chute to the bottom of the mountain, then transport back to the top via pumps or buckets. However, this will require an intelligently designed and employed mechanism to do so. In this case we could have dS = dSe + dSi, where dSe represents the entire water supply restored to the tank (miraculously repaired somehow) and dSi is the energy lost from sloshing and friction down the mountainside, replaced by the outside energy needed to move the water back up to the tank.

EXAMPLE 2: A small animal loses its food supply. It remains alone in a very large room (large enough that suffocation is not an issue, say a building of 150x150x1 miles, i.e., 22,500 cubic miles) sealed from the outside and adiabatically perfect. The animal naturally roams around, looking for food (there is none). As it starves, all its fat reserves are consumed by the normal biomolecular mechanisms of life. Heat is generated and is radiated away from the body. As the animal finally dies from the lack of nutrition sources usable by its body cells, causing organ shutdown and finally brain death, entropy will continue to increase because the cells break down and deteriorate from decay. Any parasite life will now work in the decay process until they, too, die from lack of nutrition. At some point in the future, under the carefully controlled conditions of this large room, maximum entropy will be obtained and remain static until something from outside the system acts upon it.

SUMMARY:

¡¤ The earth is not a closed system. Thermodynamic processes are used to explain ordinary physical laws. We can choose isolated cases to study closed systems.

¡¤ Reasonably, our solar system can be treated as a closed system for most ordinary thermodynamic studies. Arbitrarily, we could put the spherical ¡°closed¡± boundary of our solar system at a two or three light-year radius (two light years is 11.7 trillion miles (11.7 x1012)). In other words, there is no known power source of sufficient strength, other than our sun, to add value to our solar system¡¯s energy resources.

¡¤ There is no scientific literature that I am aware of that indicates violation of any known laws of thermodynamics. In fact, atheists / evolutionists themselves state this. (ref That Their Words May Be Used Against Them by Henry Morris).

R. B. Lindsay says: ¡°The most careful examination of all naturally occurring processes (i.e., those in which external influences are not allowed to intervene) has only served to confirm our confidence in the inexorable over-all increase in the entropy of the universe¡± (¡°Entropy Consumption and Values in Physical Science,¡± American Scientist, Vol. 47, September 1959, p. 379)

¡¤ Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking system. The overall change is then a complexity loss in line with the dictates of the second law. ¡°Beyond the Cosmos¡± by Dr. Hugh Ross, using Einstein¡¯s relativity equations, string theory, the hot Big Bang theory model, shows that our universe by necessity is a closed system (the reader will note that until recently I was neutral in the debate of Young Earth vs Old Earth Creationists ¨C citing ¡°Beyond the Cosmos¡± is not necessarily an endorsement of Old Earth Creation research and conclusions. But after years of struggling / searching for the best approach, either Old Earth or Young Earth Creation, I have finally concluded that the proper Biblical and Scientific agreement and approach is that of Young Earth Creation. This includes the notion that the Hot Big-Bang Model is not congruent with the Creation account cited in the Book of Genesis). Our universe, and neither our solar system, is not receiving any additional energy from without. The COBE satellite in 1993 detected a uniform background radiation signature of the universe, with a temp of about 3 degrees R, which was extremely close to predictions. So, it seems we safely can call the universe closed (at least for now).

¡°¡­.in any isolated system (that is, a system from which all external sources of energy are shut off), the energy of the system is conserved in quantity but is continually being degraded in quality as long as any energy change is taking place in the system. Some of the available energy is always dissipated in nonrecoverable friction or heat energy. Since all activities of nature (including biological activities) involve such energy transfers, there must be an ever-decreasing supply of usable energy for maintaining all natural processes in the universe as a whole.¡± [¡°Science And The Bible,¡± ¡®Chapter 1 Science in the Bible, The Basic Laws of Science¡¯ by Henry M. Morris, revised and updated, (MOODY PRESS, Chicago), ¡°That Their Words May Be Used Against Them,¡± hardback and CD-ROM] {Note: Dr. Henry M. Morris is founder and President Emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research, an engineer, and former Department Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at Virginia Tech - MSS} (again, the reader will note that in the debate of Young Earth vs Old Earth Creationists, I now very firmly side with the Young Earth Creationists camp ¨C citing ¡°Science And The Bible¡± and ¡°That Their Words May Be Used Against Them¡± is not necessarily an endorsement of all Young Earth Creation research and conclusions, for there are some disagreements and incomplete models)

¡¤ We have a battle primarily of theological ideologies:

¡°Science doesn¡¯t ¡°prove facts,¡± it only offers reasonable explanations that fit with the evidence.¡± Ariex, a former debate opponent

¡°The heart cannot embrace what the mind cannot comprehend.¡± Hank Hanegraaff

¡°The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.¡± (I Corinthians 2:14, NIV)
117 posted on 11/14/2005 12:17:39 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Um, the 2nd law applies only to closed systems, where energy is not added.

Here on Earth we circle the Sun, which is very hot and adds energy, making the 2nd law innapplicable.


118 posted on 11/14/2005 12:25:45 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

(My point being: keep it simple.)


119 posted on 11/14/2005 12:27:09 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
[The tank has burst and all the water has run down the hill. There is no potential or kinetic energy left in the system.]

We could construct a mechanism to fully funnel the water down a tube or chute to the bottom of the mountain, then transport back to the top via pumps or buckets. However, this will require an intelligently designed and employed mechanism to do so...

Or the SUN COULD SHINE and evaporate the water, putting it back on mountaintops all over the place. That's how rivers run today. THE SUN IS SHINING. Go out and look for yourself.

120 posted on 11/14/2005 12:28:12 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
Origin of life is not evolution.

You're mixing my replies. I never said it was evolution... and would appreciate not being misquoted. Let's leave that for the professionals, (ie, the liberal press). Fair enough?

121 posted on 11/14/2005 12:41:34 PM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
I also notice you cite this guy as a "rocket scientist" explaining to us what "rocket science" has to say about the Second Law. It thus looks ever so wrong that his footnotes are heavy with citations of Henry Morris and Hugh Ross. These are rabid creationists whom most would not accept as rocket scientists and yet this guy appeals to their authority to convince us. I notice he also argues from the universe being a closed system, as if that were 1) relevant or 2) established. It only matters that the Earth is absolutely positively NOT a closed system.
122 posted on 11/14/2005 12:44:59 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
OK. Dr Abrahms's claim is vacuous.

Now, that's better, isn't it? A grown up approach to debate. Or, what passes for grown up debate 'round these parts. *vbg*

123 posted on 11/14/2005 12:45:37 PM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy
Then please explain to me what force or forces prevents enough microevolutionary changes from summing into macro change.

I'd be delighted. Please give me the change you'd like me to discuss... one with hard evidence behind it. If there is no prevention, as you allude, you should be able to supply dozens of examples with a clear record of progression from species to species.

124 posted on 11/14/2005 12:48:38 PM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Nowhere in the very long excerpt that you quoted does the author make any case that evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The biospehere is not a closed system; as the author points out; if it was, no life would exist on earth at all. Also, is not apparent that 100kg of modern life has more entropy than 100kg of precambrian bacteria.

Also, looking at the Big Bang model, the entropy of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang was very low (possibly almost zero), giving a universe very consistent with the 2nd Law.

Using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to attack evolution and cosmology is just plain silly - it doesn't have any useful application in this arena except for irritating physicists.

125 posted on 11/14/2005 12:51:53 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
...The earth is not a closed system...

This was copied from GarySpFc post #117. How is it you comment that "the Earth is absolutely positively NOT a closed system." as if you are bringing new information that was left out of the post #117?

126 posted on 11/14/2005 12:54:40 PM PST by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Ever notice when the sun shines down on cockroaches, they scatter?

Remind you of anyone?


127 posted on 11/14/2005 12:59:00 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Exigence; The_Reader_David

This is the post I was replying to:

"To: The_Reader_David
Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education.

Precisely.
75 posted on 11/14/2005 9:13:52 AM PST by Exigence

The_Reader_David had, in post 73 had said:

>>"To: Exigence
Okay, is that what this row was all about? A clause in science standards mandating criticism of origin-of-life theories? Any of the Kansans are yahoos (in Swift's sense, not subscribers to a certain on-line company) crowd have some missing quotations from the Kansas BOR standards to show otherwise?

Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education."

73 posted on 11/14/2005 9:11:43 AM PST by The_Reader_David<<

And -that- referred to item 7 in the standards which included origin of life as a part of the evolution standards.


128 posted on 11/14/2005 1:01:29 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Speaking of omissions, when Adam left the Garden, God cursed all his senses --- except smell.

Which is interesting, in that smell has a profound memory-response-triggering ability, unlike any other sense.

Smell certain kind of mildew and you're back in Grandma's garage, getting down the hammock.


129 posted on 11/14/2005 1:04:57 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Oh, of course. I get it now.

The entropic hash equivalence is ¡Ý 0 (¡®dQ¡¯) ¡®dS¡, where ¡®T¡¯ represents heat, ¡®QR¡¯ represents either potatoes or corned beef, and a refrigerator-dripping-water-down-a mountain-peak-onto-a-small-animal-stuck-in-a-tailpipe-without-a-food-source represents a can opener.

How could I have been so blind?

130 posted on 11/14/2005 1:06:17 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Oh, of course. I get it now.

Further inspiration to keep my current tagline for a while.

131 posted on 11/14/2005 1:11:27 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

OK, where is it?


132 posted on 11/14/2005 1:13:58 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: KMJames
How is it you comment that "the Earth is absolutely positively NOT a closed system." as if you are bringing new information that was left out of the post #117?

Because the author of the piece forgot to consider that the Earth is not a closed system at the specific point when he argued the water can't get out of the bottom of the valley ever again without Intelligent Design. Unless, that is, you're saying the Sun and all the other stars in the universe can't operate except by continuous intelligent intervention.

133 posted on 11/14/2005 1:19:34 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Remind you of anyone?

People with sun-sensitivity? ;)

134 posted on 11/14/2005 1:20:45 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
I'd be delighted. Please give me the change you'd like me to discuss... one with hard evidence behind it.

Perhaps you don't understand my question. You referred to a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Please define these terms you used and briefly explain the distinction.
135 posted on 11/14/2005 1:20:49 PM PST by aNYCguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Michael Shelton is a rocket scientist, and currently works as an Aerospace Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center on Tomahawk missiles. If you want to further question his credibility or think you know more about SLOT I will be more than happy to provide you with his e-mail address. I guarantee you he will welcome the debate.
136 posted on 11/14/2005 1:33:04 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Exigence; aNYCguy
If there is no prevention, as you allude, you should be able to supply dozens of examples with a clear record of progression from species to species.

You might want to start with one of these, courtesy of PatrickHenry's links. Smooth transitions from species to species. We also see such processes in progress today, among ring species, et.al.

The inevitable rebuttal is that these are "only microevolutionary changes", which is untrue, because there is clearly an emergence of a different related species in the cited cases. If you wish to push back the envelope further, and demand interfamily transitions, interorder transitions, etc., there are examples also, but due to the length of time and paucity of the fossil record, and the "branching" of peripheral species, the wider the relation, the more "gaps" there will be in the fossil record. However, there are numerous examples of clear transitions between these wider groupings as well. Fortunately, also, there are other lines of inquiry to confirm broader relations in addition to the fossil record, including biogeographical and genetic/morphological evidence.

137 posted on 11/14/2005 1:35:14 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Or you could tell him where FR is if he's the last creationist on Earth who doesn't know.
138 posted on 11/14/2005 1:37:21 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Michael Shelton is a rocket scientist, and currently works as an Aerospace Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center on Tomahawk missiles. If you want to further question his credibility or think you know more about SLOT I will be more than happy to provide you with his e-mail address. I guarantee you he will welcome the debate.

I wouldn't even know what to debate. The excerpt you quoted doesn't make any comment about the validity of thermodynamics as it relates to evolution at all. It is just an obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue. Could you point where, specifically, in that long rambling, where it is proven that thermodynamics makes evolution impossible? I didn't see it, and I don't think anyone else did either. It would certainly be news to the worldwide scientific community if this was indeed the case.

139 posted on 11/14/2005 1:41:20 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Doesn't address evolution, but it sure shows you better be careful spilling water lest it run down a steep hill.
140 posted on 11/14/2005 1:44:36 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

heat death placemarker


141 posted on 11/14/2005 1:48:06 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

That's OK.

Russell Yates is and was a "rocket scientist" for NASA who let his wife have massive depresive episodes by knowingly allowing her to wean herself off of medications so they could have more children, and got mixed up with a freaky preacher who lived in a bus and dressed in devil costumes.

Oh, yeah and she was so crazy she killed all their children.

"Rocket scientist" means nothing about lucidity.

Here, this man is either crazy or intentionally trying to deceive people with mumbo jumbo --- which is not Christian in the least.

The Sun heats the Earth; ergo, the 2nd law does not apply to anything going on in Earth until the Sun runs out of hydrogen and we all die in a super-nova.

Period.

Anyone who says the 2nd Law applies to the Earth in this context is a liar or an idiot spouting bad science.

Indeed, I would venture as far as saying that they are willing or unknowing agents of Satan, in that they are making Christians look dishonest or stupid or both.


142 posted on 11/14/2005 1:52:10 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Festival of the Spilled Water


143 posted on 11/14/2005 1:53:42 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
The Sun heats the Earth; ergo, the 2nd law does not apply to anything going on in Earth...

We have to be a little careful of this kind of statement because the Second Law does have effects on Earth. It keeps us from ever making a certain class of perpetual motion machines, for instance.

The latter frustration led Maxwell to postulate a very hypothetical demon to thwart the second law and reset a heat engine to its initial condition for free. (It was eventually shown that even a hypothetical demon isn't enough unless it operates by pure and utter magic.) The second law operates here and everywhere, but it doesn't frustrate processes which operate in systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

144 posted on 11/14/2005 2:00:31 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I would venture as far as saying that they are willing or unknowing agents of Satan, in that they are making Christians look dishonest or stupid or both.

That path has to be paved with teflon. I do not personally enjoy pointing this out. I wish educated Christians would stand up and point out this kind of dishonesty.

Answers in Genesis, a purely creationist site, lists the Second Law as an argument creationists should not use. Why aren't there any FReeper creationists with the integrity to stand against this nonsense.

145 posted on 11/14/2005 2:00:36 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Hence, "in this context"


146 posted on 11/14/2005 2:04:25 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Hence, "in this context"

Right. Just anticipating the ambush from the Twist and Shout crowd.

147 posted on 11/14/2005 2:06:41 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Which is interesting, in that smell has a profound memory-response-triggering ability, unlike any other sense.

I have a reverse of that; not sure if it supports your statement or refutes it, but it exists nonetheless...

About 15-20 years ago I was sent to a micro-miniature circuit repair course in the Marines. We spent 10 hours a day, for six straight weeks, basically soldering SMT circuit boards nonstop under microscopes. To keep from going totally insane we had a radio on, playing the only station in the area. It played the same handful of songs OVER and OVER. To this day, if I hear one of those songs, I smell the strong odor of burning flux. Not just the memory of it; I really smell it!

148 posted on 11/14/2005 2:15:36 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Fair warning received and acknowledged.

I am very much a Christian --- a covert from Judaism, no less.

I take my faith very seriously and do accept the entire Bible as the Word of God.

The "Christians" who twist and modify the Word to fit their pre-conceived agenda and notions of the world sadden me greatly. They remind me of the pharasees (my ancestors) who rejected Christ because they read the prophecies with an agenda that did not fit the God's reality.


149 posted on 11/14/2005 2:16:15 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Based on the response to these few words, as outlined in the article, it appears that evolution is not open to criticism.
150 posted on 11/14/2005 2:17:50 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-281 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson