Skip to comments.A column about Kansas Science Standards
Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence
click here to read article
heat death placemarker
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.
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.
Festival of the Spilled Water
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.
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.
Hence, "in this context"
Right. Just anticipating the ambush from the Twist and Shout crowd.
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!
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.
No, memories trigger smell and smell triggers memories.
I imagine you can call up a memory of grandma's kitchen and smell cookies (or something), too, if you tried.
The second strongest triggers are songs, BTW.
So you have both going in this example.
> Based on the response to these few words, as outlined in the article, it appears that evolution is not open to criticism.
Sure it is. It's when you lie, as this feller has done, that people tend to get snippy.
Read the literature: evolutionary biologists and paleontologists are forever sniping at each others theories. But while there's considerable debate, discussion and criticism over various aspects of evolutionary theory and evidence, there is as yet no scientific criticism of evolution as a whole. Just as planetary scientists snipe at each other regarding this aspect of Martian geology or that, they don't debate that Mars is *there*.
All I know is it drives me batty at times. I didn't much care for those songs to begin with. :-p
changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another. Again, as previously stated, evolutionists want nothing to do with trying to clarify terms and meanings.
I hope he somewhere someplace sometime clarifies his meaning of his scientific definition of kind.
We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding...
Hmmm. I guess I know where this guy stands on evolution and 'evolutionists'. I guess he thinks hundreds of thousands of 'evolutionist' scientists have been 'hiding' something the past 150 years. Is it just me or does this sound paranoid?
Yet curiously and fantastically enough, here's an article from Answer in Genesis explaining how evolution violates the 2nd law.
I've come to expect little, though, from a website that claims T. Rex was created as a vegetarian and that all known species of wild cats evolved from a common ancestor on Noah's Ark within the last 5000 years.
The effect is called a "Proustian Memory" and can be quite dramatic, bringing back whole floods of emotion.
There are actually therapies to make it stop (say adults that were abused who can't stand the touch of a wooden spoon or somesuch), if it really gets on your nerves.
You could probably do it yourself by listening to the music for 10 days straight while doing something entirely different.
Nope! Never! The Creationist/IDers have all the best seats on that bus.
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.