PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     DNA And evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Evolution

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could "understand" being a creationist in the time of galaleo. but after orgin of the speicies (1859) and now after watson and crick found the model for heridity- the double helix - the Dexyrybo Nucleic Acid- dna; its absoultey absurd to refute it - even after 140 years of creationistic attempts they can not and have not got anything to stick. evolution is not a religion it is a theory welcomed to be disproven.... hell if you did disprove it you would get a nobel prize i can assure you.

most people think that you get 50% of your genome from your mother and 50% from your father. the truth is you get 49.9XXX from your mother and 49.9xxx from your father. the rest of your genomic sequence is acounted for my random chance. the same randomness that makes perfection impossible and rules the uncertianty principle in quantum mechanics. Your genome is comprised of 3 billion base pairs (G T C A). the small change from one generation to the next is approximatley 30 base pairs in humans. this along with sexual recombination, and genetic drift help to accont for the bio diversity which natural selection as well as "random chance mortality" play on. its a slow process that takes many generations. If god is lying to you is this a god you really want to believe in? if you blame the men who wrote the bible why didn't god intervine and cleanse his word so to speak. open your mind people the truth will set you free


-------
Invest your love in each other not God. Uncertinity is the stuff of curiosity.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 6:21 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Meatros

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with you, although I'd say that I wouldn't expect people to fully accept evolution right after origin of the species.  I'd say that if you are educated in the matter then the conclusion should be blantantly obvious.

The problem is their are people who refuse to get educated in evolution and their are also people who lie in order to promote their religious propaganda (while breaking a commandment...how odd...).
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 08:24 AM on July 15, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't see how you can think that people are uneducated in evolution, I mean they teach it all throughout school from the time that you are in kindergarden with Dinosaurs to the time you graduate and then all throughout most colleges.
What are you talking about God lieing to us. Are you trying to say that because 50% and 50% from parrents isn't exactly true that somehow God is lieing to us? If you mean people aren't perfect then I agree because people arn't perfect, What do you expect when you consider we are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and so on and so forth. I do think that people would be perfectly built even today if Adam hadn't sinned.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:13 PM on November 9, 2003 | IP
Tux

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Simple stories for simple people.  Humans are the only animals that have the intelligence to forsee their own demise. A concept which we can't seem to cope with. Religion fills that void by saying, your not really going to die.... you will just live somewhere else. not only that, but its a better somewhere else, maybe even a paradise. You will live forever. If there is no end. Why then must there be a begining? Why does infinity only travel in one direction down the timeline? what was before the begining? what is after the end? perhaps time is similar to the universe, infinite in all directions! Creation? You cannot create nor destroy mass. It simply changes form. the universe  had,has and always will maintain the exact same level of mass, whether in the form of complex animals or elctrons protons and nuetrons no longer even foming atoms due to extreme energy (such as the suns core). God and religion's role is to explain what we do not understand, once mental illness was seen as demonic possession, the cure was exorsism. Now that we understand mental illness it is no longer blamed on the supernatural. the more we learn, the less of a role religion plays.  As we learn more and more about our universe's history (and the concept of time fabric itself)  the more the creation theory will become more like demonic possession. A small few still clinging to an arcaic belief system. Truth comes will a price however,.. We the evolutionists are now burdend with the fear of death, and the lack of meaning in our lives, perhaps we shouldn't try to change the minds of the religious, they have a calm that we may never know. They are all that may be false, but their happyness is real! Perhaps sometimes I wish I could foget logic and believe too. But I can't.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 09:16 AM on February 29, 2004 | IP
mea5720

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't see how the discovery of DNA and models of heredity disprove creation.  That is like saying that once we discover that computer programs use well defined data structures, that proves there are no programmers.  In fact, the usual line of reasoning is that the more systematic and well formed a system, the more impressive the creator of that system.


-------
Michael
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:45 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The trouble is life is not very systematic or well formed


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:52 PM on March 24, 2004 | IP
Swank

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b][center][size=15]
[color=yellow]
you people make me laugh. im an eighth grader and i can already pick apart every argument you put up.
just to let you know, we have decoded such a small portion of the DNA strand (less than one percent), so how do you get off saying that your 'massive knowledge' of DNA disproves the science of Creation.
you say that matter cant be created? so where did the material for the Big Bang come from? where did the electrical charges in lightning come from to trigger the primordial ooze? hmmm...cant answer, can you? funny, my God provides the answers....


-------
-Swank--"Because sometimes its just that swank."
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 7:37 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny, you showed your ignorance.  You're in 8th grade, so here's a hint for you.  You don't know everything.  In fact, you know very little.  Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the ToE.  Lightning comes from electrical imbalances.  DNA proves evolution.  The big bang was before the creation of the universe, so it's quite possible that the universal "Laws" do not apply.  

Before you decide to grace us with your ignorance again, do some research into the ToE.  Despite what you may think, the ToE does not disprove the existence of god.


BTW, "goddidit" is not an answer.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:56 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you people make me laugh. im an eighth grader and i can already pick apart every argument you put up.

Well, you haven't picked apart ANY arguements yet.  So far you sound like a typical creationist, all bark and no bite, or should I say no evidence!

just to let you know, we have decoded such a small portion of the DNA strand (less than one percent), so how do you get off saying that your 'massive knowledge' of DNA disproves the science of Creation.

Actually we've decoded about 90% of the human genome, please try to use data from the 21st century.  And everything we've observed in the genome is consistant with the theory of evolution.

you say that matter cant be created?

Not me!  And quantum physics doesn't say that either.  Particles can spontaneously appear uncaused, so that matter is created out of nothing...

where did the electrical charges in lightning come from to trigger the primordial ooze?

ONce again, stop using out of date creationist resources!  Lightning as a cause for abiogenesis is an old hypothesis and doesn't figure into many of the latest hypothesises on how life formed.

hmmm...cant answer, can you? funny, my God provides the answers....

OK, where did God get the material for the Big Bang?  For that matter, where did God come from?  Why did God design the world so that all evidence makes it look 4.5 billion years old and why did he make all the evidence for life look like it evolved from a common ancestor?
If your God has all the answers, he certainly isn't sharing them with the rest of us...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:09 PM on March 29, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting that you would choose DNA as your topic to discuss the validity of evolution.  

I am a christian.  I believe the Bible is true.  The Bible says that God created the world, and I happen to believe that it is true.  Evolution takes the presupposition (improvable idea believed by faith) that there was no intelligent design (no intelligent creator).  Essentially, the basis of evolution is to prove that the origin of man can happen without God.  Creation takes the opposite presupposition.  Both based on faith in something unobservable (I am pretty sure no one alive or dead actually witnessed the origin of everything and everyone).

Regarding genetics and DNA; there is a very simple formula to disprove evolution.  What is the mechanism whereby a single cell gains genetic information to evolve into a being as complex as a human?  

Evolution's answer to this question?  Mutation.  However, I challenge anyone who has impenatrable faith in evolution to show one naturally occuring instance where genetic information is gained in mutation.  My first week in Genetics class at the University of Minnesota my proffessor stated quite clearly that mutation involves a loss or re-arrangement of genetic information.  

Here is an anology - say you take a 100 page book, and you remove 2 of the pages.  Mutation has happened, but we have lost information.  Instead of losing information, say now we take and duplicate all the chapters.  The book is now twice as long, right?  Yes, the book is twice as long, but we still have the same information.  No new information has been added.  

Mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example.

To take a single cell and mutate it into a person or an animal for that matter is absolutely impossible without an intelligent intervention.

Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present.

It is possible for mutation breeding to generate new varieties with traits which are improved from our point of view (e.g. shorter wheat plants, different protein quality, low levels of toxins, etc.). Where such improvements have been investigated on a molecular basis, researchers have found that the new trait is not due to the appearance of a new protein, but the modification of an existing one, even when it seems to be a new trait, such as herbicide resistance.

In a recent paper, evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos summed it up nicely when he said: 'We can go on examining natural variation at all levels ... as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.'

2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

This is why we see a weakening of the human genetic structure over time.  With each generation, we loose more genetic information.  Like every other natural system, DNA moves from higher order to chaos.  

So anyway - I challenge anyone here to show me a natural process that shows genetic information being added by an "evolutionary" process (aka lack of intelligent intervention).  If you can't, perhaps it's time to open your mind to the possibility that your presuppoitions... your very faith in evolution... may be misguided.

Edited in:
"Why did God design the world so that all evidence makes it look 4.5 billion years old and why did he make all the evidence for life look like it evolved from a common ancestor?"

Why do evolutionists insist on interpreting the facts based on the pre-supposition that there is no God (and the story conjured up to "prove" it).

"If your God has all the answers, he certainly isn't sharing them with the rest of us..."

Actually, he did.  Read through Genesis.  The entire story is laid out in perfect detail.


(Edited by Gup20 4/6/2004 at 01:35 AM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:27 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do evolutionists insist on interpreting the facts based on the pre-supposition that there is no God (and the story conjured up to "prove" it).


Why do so many creationists make the fallacious claim that evolution equals atheism?  Most Christians disagree.

Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.
~ Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 7


(Edited by Apoapsis 4/6/2004 at 10:14 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:13 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do so many creationists make the fallacious claim that evolution equals atheism?  Most Christians disagree.


Truth isn't decided by popular vote (as an American, i can attest to that first hand).  

You seem to have left out any form of response to the "meat and potatoes" of my post.  This is a commonality amoung Evolutionists when presented with these facts.  "Lets talk about something else", or "that is laughable"... all the while having no actual evidence, facts, or arguments to reply with.

Claim the facts are true and then debate the philosophical issue (knowing the facts can't hold their own).  Anyone care to comment on the science rather than opinion polls?


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 10:49 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I can get to your list of PRATTs later.

Maybe I missed something, didn't YOU bring up Behe in support of your position?

Do you agree with him or not?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:00 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't bring up Behe in this post, and no I do not agree entirely with his position.  After all, he isn't a creationist is he?  I do not disagree entirely with his interpretation of the facts either.

It's hard to argue with Genetics, however.  We know that mutation is demonstrably unable to add information to a genome.  Yet, an evolutionist will say "mutation" and magically we go from (excuse the phrase) goo-tothezoo-toyou (from single cell organism to a complex one such as a person).  However, the "magic" is lost when you can see scientifically that Mutation is a loss of genetic information, and recombination is a re-ordering of existing information.  It is simply not a natural occurrence to see information added to a genome.  It is, however, a natural occurrence to see information lost.  This is the natural course of all living things on this planet.  

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:50 AM on April 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

goo-tothezoo-toyou
Great, another hovind folower.  


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:06 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't bring up Behe in this post, and no I do not agree entirely with his position.  After all, he isn't a creationist is he?  I do not disagree entirely with his interpretation of the facts either.


OK, True or False:

Why does Behe insist on interpreting the facts based on the pre-supposition that there is no God (and the story conjured up to "prove" it).



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:39 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20, you're whole post is crap, why do you even bother!

However, I challenge anyone who has impenatrable faith in evolution to show one naturally occuring instance where genetic information is gained in mutation.

Nylon eating bacteria!

Challenge met!

Mutations do not add any information, they just cause existing information to be mis-directed to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example.

Despite the fact that creationists never define information as it pertains to genetics and mutations, bacteria that mutate to be able to consume nylon, which wasn't even invented until the 1940's,  in addition to their previous diet disproves your assertion.  

To take a single cell and mutate it into a person or an animal for that matter is absolutely impossible without an intelligent intervention

Erroneous claim with no evidence to back it up.

Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes
present.


Please define "kind", it is not a biological term and really has no place in a discussion about the theory of evolution.  

In a recent paper, evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos summed it up nicely when he said: 'We can go on examining natural variation at all levels ... as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.'

Let's see the source, I don't believe Miklos is a creationist...and creationists are famous for quoting out of context....

2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

This is not what the 2LOT says!  

This is why we see a weakening of the human genetic structure over time.  With each generation, we loose more genetic information.  Like every other natural system, DNA moves from higher order to chaos.  

This is not true, please provide any evidence what so ever that points to the human genetic structure weakening!  Again, you can't just make up facts whenever you want to....

So anyway - I challenge anyone here to show me a natural process that shows genetic information being added by an "evolutionary" process (aka lack of intelligent intervention).  If you can't, perhaps it's time to open your mind to the possibility that your presuppoitions... your very faith in evolution... may be misguided.

All ready done, nylon eating bacteria shows a natural mutation that added genetic information, your point is disproven.  NOw, maybe you should do some real research and learn what the theory of evolution is, instead of relying on the false information fed to you by creationist sources....  Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains how it works.  Virtually all the worlds biologists accept this theory, it is one of the strongest in science.

Why do evolutionists insist on interpreting the facts based on the pre-supposition that there is no God (and the story conjured up to "prove" it

Scientists do their best to be objective, the theory of evolution is not based on presuppostions, it is soley based on the evidence of multiple scientific disciplines.  The theory of evolution does not claim there is no God, in fact most christians world wide accept the theory of evolution.

Actually, he did.  Read through Genesis.  The entire story is laid out in perfect           detail.

It's laid out in perfect detail if your a 4000 year old nomadic goat herdsman, but it is obvious to modern humans that Genesis is nothing but a myth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:01 PM on April 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However, I challenge anyone who has impenatrable faith in evolution to show one naturally occuring instance where genetic information is gained in mutation.


Nylon eating bacteria!
Challenge met!


Because nylon is a natural occuring substance according to evolution?

I have already described the creationist view on that - adapting to new food sources is a designed already held trait of the plasmids that make this possible.   Obviously you woulnd't agree with any evidence we provided.

Despite the fact that creationists never define information...

I explained it for you -  you can increase the frequency of existing information, but you can't add new - you get ge a fruit flly leg on a fruit fly head (because that information is already included in the genome), but you can't get bird parts (as that would indicate new information).

Please define "kind", it is not a biological term and really has no place in a discussion about the theory of evolution.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

I was talking about the theory of Creation, perhpas that is the source of your confusion - since we have already established you have ignored anything to do with creation that has come out in the last 200 years.

More fun plagerism of AiG -  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

Let's see the source, I don't believe Miklos is a creationist...and creationists are famous for quoting out of context....

George L. Gabor Miklos, 'Emergence of organisational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism', Mem. Assoc. Australas. Palaeontols15, 1993, p. 25.

I don't read very fast or well, but even your own post says "... evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos summed it...".  Now correct me if I am wrong - but I don't think I said he was a creationist.

This is not what the 2LOT says

My source:  
Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241



 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:22 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because nylon is a natural occuring substance according to evolution?

What does nylon being a natural substance have to do with anything????  It's a new element in the bacteria's environment, as such the bacteria evolved to consume it, new genetic information was added to their genome to do this, documented and proven to be a fact.

I explained it for you -  you can increase the frequency of existing information, but you can't add new - you get ge a fruit flly leg on a fruit fly head (because that information is already included in the genome), but you can't get bird parts
(as that would indicate new information).


And yet, the fossil record shows us just this, dinosuars sudeenly developing new structures like feathers, fish developing new structures, legs, so yes, we see just what you're claining we don't see!  Your wrong again!

was talking about the theory of Creation, perhpas that is the source of your confusion - since we have already established you have ignored anything to do with creation that has come out in the last 200 years.

You can quote the bible till your blue in the face, you still haven't defined "kind'...
And nothing in the last 200 years has supported creationism.

About the 2LOT, it certainly does NOT disprove or prevent evolution!  It applies to entropy increasing in a closed system.  First of all, the earth is not a cloosed system, it continually gets new energy from the sun.  Secondly, entropy in a closed system can decrease  locally if it increases somewhere else in the systme.  So no, the 2LOT presents no impediment to the theory of evolution, why did you even bother to bring it up?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on April 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Gup20 at Tue April 6, 2004 - 01:27 AM
2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.


This is simply plararized from any one of a number of web sites such as Possible plagarization site .  You should be more honest about your sources.  Is spreading falsehood the kind of witness you profess?

You need to understand the argument before you copy it.  The second law of thermodynamics is about heat flow.  Since the earth has both solar and geothermal heat sources available to provide external work, nothing in the second law forbids evolution.

The Lord Kelvin quote might indeed be from Smith and Cooper, but the rest isn't since it is false.

From Elements of Physics, 5th edition:

361. Second Law of Thermodynamics  The second law of thermodynamics states the conditions under which heat may be transferred from one body to another.
It is in effect a statement of the fact that heat naturally flows from a place of higher to one of lower temperature but never in the reverse direction.
An analogue may make the meaning clearer.  Water may flow from a higher to a lower level with the perfomance of work.  To cause water to flow from a lower to a higher level requires that external work be done on it.
To cause heat to from a lower to a higher temperature also requires the performance of external work.  The natural tendency of heat to flow from a higher to a lower temperature makes it possible for a heat engine to transform heat into work.
On the contrary, a mechanical refrigerating machine must transfer heat from a colder to a hotter body.  Work much be done on such a machine to make this transfer.  The following is a statement of this law:
It is impossible for any kind of machine working in a cycle to transfer hear from a lower to a higher temperature unless external work is done on it.
A similiar statement of the water analogy would be: It is impossible fora pump working in a cycle to transfer water from a lower to a higher level unless external work is done on it.
The law cannot be proved by direct experiment.  It is a generalization based on the fact that in all human experience no contradictions of the law have been found.  
It merely states that heat of itself can flow only from higher to lower tempertures and no exceptions to this rule are know.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:03 AM on April 8, 2004 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.