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
     2nd law of thermodynamics
       is it a valid argument against evolution?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
dixy

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd really like to see all of your opinions about this.

Creationists often use the second law of thermodynamics as the basis for an important argument against evolution. According to their view, the second law depicts a world that must become more disordered. This is in contrast to evolution. Is their argument valid? Why or why not?

(Edited by dixy 8/31/2005 at 5:03 PM).
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 5:03 PM on August 31, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is probably obvious where I stand regarding creation vs. evolution debate.  But I just wanted to offer you two resources, where you can read ideas from both sides.  Please keep in mind that both sites are presenting opinions that support their points of view, so there is obviously some bias in the articles listed.  But at least they can provide some insight, at least they did for me.  If you are already familiar with the information on these sites, sorry for wasting your time.  

Talk.origins "dot" org is a site supporting evolution by attempting to discredit creation science.  There is an article on that site discussing exactly what you are wondering about here.  Read that article, but I hope you keep an open mind while you read it.  Perhaps you can print it out to compare later to another article, listed below.

Trueorigins "dot" org was created to attempt to rebut the "propaganda" being presented at Talk.origins.  There is an article at trueorigins rebutting the thermodynamics piece at talk.origins.  

Reading both articles may help you decide what to believe.  Or, you might decide that they are both too slanted to believe anything they say.  But they are a starting point in researching to gain understanding for yourself.  One thing I would encourage is that you keep an open mind.  

I hope this helps.



-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 06:06 AM on September 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's another good site that shows what the second law of thermodynamics really means:

2LOT
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:25 PM on September 2, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow!  Finally looked at True.origins page on the 2LOT, what a load of nonsense!  It makes so many mistakes, it misinterpretes the second law so many times, it tries to apply it's version of the 2LOT to systems that just don't apply.  
Let's take a look...

While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only “problem” is that creationists “misunderstand” real thermodynamics.

Why don't they name some of the "highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism who are candid enough to acknowledge this problem"?  Becasue there are none.  Surely an evolutionist who admitts that the 2LOT posses a problem for evolution would be well known,
why can't they give us a name?

But while he may appear to have a handle on the mathematics and applied science of thermodynamics, Steiger himself steps out of the realm of scientific knowledge to defend the standard dogma of the evolutionist faith, using his own metaphors and semantic smoke and mirrors to make evolutionism appear immune to the best established scientific law known to man.

Nonsense, if an organism can reproduce, evolution happens, it's as simple as that.

Within the realm of science, these are among the most immovable, universal laws of science, as the following scientific authorities testify:

Notice how they have to use quotes from almost 40 years ago?  We have learned a lot in those 40 years about quantum theory, the thermodynamic laws are not so immovable these days.

Let me focus on this quote because it's the most recent:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics....”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]"

Now there are known violations of the second law of thermodynamics, from here:
2LOTBroken
"Physicists knew that at atomic scales over very short periods of time, statistical mechanics is pushed beyond its limit, and the second law does not apply. Put another way, situations that break the second law become much more probable.

But the new experiment probed the uncertain middle ground between extremely small-scale systems and macroscopic systems and showed that the second law can also be consistently broken at micron scale, over time periods of up to two seconds."

True.origins uses out of date quotes in an attempt to hoodwink people into believing in their claims, they are almost always wrong.

This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics.  Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy)—and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher case statistical entropy).

Here we see their biggest inaccuracy.  How does the 2LOT, which explains how heat energy in a closed system can never increase, apply to the "probability of distribution matters in Information Theory "?  Complete nonsequitor.  They have nothing in common and True.origins banks on the fact that their readers won't realize this.  In nature, we see many ordered events naturally arising from less ordered systems.  More complex and ordered stars form from less ordered nebulas of hydrogen gas, more complex organisms grow from less complex reproductive cells, complex patterns form when less ordered liquids crystalize, random weather fronts can form more ordered tornadoes, hurricanes.  We see simple chemicals combine into more complex chemical compounds.  DNA is subject to these chemical changes.  We have directly observed how a genome can increase in size, we have directly observed new structures forming from mutations, these can only be considered new information, so, by direct observation, we have disproven True.origins claims.  the 2LOT does not apply to evolution.

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

This is untrue as I demonstrated with the examples above, hydrogen gas condenses into more complex stars, crystallization forms more complex patterns, simple chemicals combine to form more complex chemical compounds, all while obeying the 2LOT.

Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

Once again, they do not understand the 2LOT at all.  Immediately following the big bang, the universe was in its most ordered state in relation to entropy, it was incredibly hot and completely uniform.  As it began to cool, as the second law dictates, there was less heat energy in the system, but pockets of order did arise, matter.  Nothing in the 2LOT says everything becomes more disordered, just the overall usable energy of the system decreases.

Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

But the second law doesn't say this, as long as the overall amount of usable energy doesn't increase, order can and does arise.

This is getting ridiculous, your site hasn't gotten anything RIGHT yet.  Tell you what, let's discuss the points I've already brought up, what do you have to defend the scientific errors True.origins has made?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:05 AM on September 3, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its not "MY" site, it serves to present a balance to talk.origins, which is a propaganda site.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:03 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its not "MY" site, it serves to present a balance to talk.origins, which is a propaganda site.  

It's the site you've posted to support your claims, it has failed to do so.  True.origins doesn't understand what the second law of thermodynamics is and presents a twisted, inaccurate version of the 2LOT in order to hoodwink it's readers into rejecting the theory of evolution.  Talk.origins is no propaganda site, it posts real, verified, scientific information.
That this information destroys your primitive myths is your problem.  That you can't refute it is also your problem.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:02 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to anything in Biology. All it states is that within a closed system, the entropy will increase. By no means does that have anything to do with common sense term of "Chaos". The Creationist definition of the 2LOT completely different from the real one we integrate into physics and chemistry.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/10/2005 at 12:29 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:27 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

isn't the universe a closed system?  I mean, a close sytem, by definition could have nothing leaving or entering that system.  What would leave our universe, where would it go, and what would enter our universe and where would it come from?  So, the universe is a closed system, so entropy should increase over time.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 10:52 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 5:52 PM on September 19, 2005 :
isn't the universe a closed system?  I mean, a close sytem, by definition could have nothing leaving or entering that system.  What would leave our universe, where would it go, and what would enter our universe and where would it come from?  So, the universe is a closed system, so entropy should increase over time.



mathematical theory speculates that the only reason our understanding of physics could be plausible is that particles that control gravity are actually able to escape our universe.  so we can't completely rule an open system out.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 01:06 AM on September 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

isn't the universe a closed system?  I mean, a close sytem, by definition could have nothing leaving or entering that system.  What would leave our universe, where would it go, and what would enter our universe and where would it come from?  So, the universe is a closed system, so entropy should increase over time.

But it doesn't matter.  We don't know if our universe is a closed systme or not.  The second law of thermodynamics does nothing to prevent order from arising, it only pertains tp the overall level of entropy for the entire system.  Order can and does come about and the entropy of the system does not decrease.  Complex systems arise and the overall entropy of the system does not decrease.  Evolution does not violate the 2LOT.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:54 PM on September 20, 2005 | IP
314

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This has already been hinted at, but I just want to reiterate for those of you who may be confused about the 2LOT that the law is completely probabilistic. It is possible that the overall entropy of a closed system will decrease. However, this possibility is so unlikely (in a sufficiently complex closed system over a sufficiently long period of time) that we can ignore it.
This caveat does not in any significant way affect the specific topic of the current discussion, but I wanted to let people know since understanding this point is key to understanding the 2LOT: It's just probability.


Here is a very brief conceptual (not rigorous/technical) explanation of the 2LOT:

For any given macrostate (a general description of a whole system; example: I have two apples and one orange) there are some number of microstates (specific description of all the elements in a system; example: I have one apple in my left hand and one in my right hand and one orange resting on my foot). Macrostates that we call 'disordered' have more associated microstates than macrostates that we call 'ordered' (example: there is only one way to arrange the letters from A to Z in alphabetical order, but there are many ways to arrange the letters from A to Z in non-alphabetical order). Therefore, there are more possible disordered states than ordered states. Changes from one state to another will tend to be a transition from a more ordered state to a more disordered state. So disorder tends to increase.

(Edited by 314 1/23/2006 at 11:55 AM).
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:05 PM on January 20, 2006 | IP
BVZ

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Even in a closed system, order can arise, as long as disorder arises as well in another part of a closed system. For example, if you place an apple in a closed system, it will start to rot. However, the rotting process creates an entire mini eco system of bacteria to grow. In fact the rotting is caused by this eco system.

This is just like the earth. The sun is burning up its energy and blasting it into space. You may think of the sun as ‘rotting’ away. The total entropy of the solar system is increasing at a dramatic rate. However, some of this energy reaches earth where it fuels a small amount of increasing order.

Another way of looking at it is by imagining a river. The water flows at great speed, but a rock in the flow causes small ripples to actually go backward a small way. These ripples are against the flow, but the total average flow of the river won’t become negative.



-------
Evil always contain the seed of its own downfall.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:29 AM on January 23, 2006 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

4000 000 000 they say the earth forms. The earths formation goes against all physical laws. 1000 000 000 They say life appears. Does a car build itself? Does does a bike? Niether does life. Anyway, how can one cell just appear when each cell is more complex than the space shuttle?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:30 AM on August 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

4000 000 000 they say the earth forms. The earths formation goes against all physical laws.

What laws does this violate?  Allow me to answer, it violates no laws of physics.

1000 000 000 They say life appears.

No, more like over 3 billion years ago.

Does a car build itself? Does does a
bike?


Cars and bikes are artifacts, they don't reproduce.  What a silly analogy!

Niether does life.

Why not?  Life is based on chemical reactions and they happen all the time.  Why can't life spontaneously arise?  And what do you know about the current state of research on abiogenesis?

Anyway, how can one cell just appear when each cell is more complex than the space shuttle?

Well firstly, modern cells didn't arise, modern cells have been evolving for over 3 billion years.  And secondly, explain how a cell is more complicated than the space shuttle...
Bet you can't do it!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:45 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

3 billion, 1 billion wat ever! Wat? Rock turned into amoebas? If earth was orginaly just made out of lava, fire, and volcanoes, how did the oceans form?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:33 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

3 billion, 1 billion wat ever!

What a great scientific statement!

Rock turned into amoebas?

Only an idiot would think a rock thurned into an amoeba!  That's certainly not what modern theories of abiogenesis say (and you know, of course, that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how life first arose...)

If earth was orginaly just made out of lava, fire, and volcanoes, how did the oceans
form?


From here:
OceansOrigin

"Some of the water in the Earth's oceans came from condensation following the outgassing of water vapor from the surface of the planet, while some was delivered by impacting comets. "

That took me all of 2 minutes to look up.
I see you're a thourough researcher...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:48 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if earth was a lava planet, then any water would evaporate if it came to earth.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:27 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if earth was a lava planet, then any water would evaporate if it came to earth.

Yeah, so what, water evaporates all the times, it enters the atmosphere, cools and then rains back down on the planet as liquid water.  Same thing happened 3.8 billion years ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:55 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We suddenly got enough water to cover more then 2 thirds of the planet?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:01 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We suddenly got enough water to cover more then 2 thirds of the planet?

I wouldn't call a couple of hundred million years 'suddenly'.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:03 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya. right


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:32 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya. right

OK, good, you agree with me.  See, that wasn't so hard!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:33 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dat was sarcasm


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:14 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dat was sarcasm

So you can't refute modern science's explaination for how oceans formed...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:26 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

another thing, evolutionists say that another planet called thea slammed into earth and yet that created a planet that could support life.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:33 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

another thing, evolutionists say that another planet called thea slammed into earth and yet that created a planet that could support life.

No they don't.  Evolutionists are biologists, biologists don't research other planets slamming into earth, that's what geologists and astronomers do.  And I never heard of Thea....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:33 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u know those Walking With... movies? like Walking with dinosaurs? I was watching Walking with monsters and it said that after earth formed a planet the size of mars slammed into earth, making a planet capable of supporting life. I think that is retarted.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:38 AM on August 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I was watching Walking with monsters and it said that after earth formed a planet the size of mars slammed into earth, making a planet capable of supporting life. I think that is retarted.

From here:
Theia

"The giant impact hypothesis (sometimes referred to as the big whack, or less frequently, the big splash) is the now-dominant scientific theory for the formation of the Moon, which is thought to have formed as a result of a collision between the young Earth and a Mars-sized body that is sometimes called Theia"

So now your a geologist???  Why do you claim it's retarded?  And I must point out, this doesn't have any direct effect on the theory of evolution, it theoretically happened before there was any life on earth.  And so, evolutionists (biologists) don't study it, geologists and astronomers do.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:32 AM on August 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If earth gor hit by a planet the size of mars, that would not create a livable planet, it would shater the planet and destroy the atmospere and whatever air there was would be sucked into space.. There would only be a little bit of planet left.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 2:23 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If earth gor hit by a planet the size of mars, that would not create a livable planet, it would shater the planet and destroy the atmospere and whatever air there was would be sucked into space.. There would only be a little bit of planet left.


You are quite right!

Of course, the planet simply redeveloped.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:51 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how? That would only create an asteroid field.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:31 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how? That would only create an asteroid field.


I assume what you mean to say would create an asteroid field is the explosion resulting from one planet in conjunction with another. That is true. Debris would be scattered all over the area of the two planets.

Once the explosion loses its momentum and the debris stops moving apart, gravity plays its part and draws everything back together.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:50 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If earth gor hit by a planet the size of mars, that would not create a livable planet, it would shater the planet and destroy the atmospere and whatever air there was would be sucked into space.. There would only be a little bit of planet left.

How do you explain the moon and what's your evidence?

And you ignored the fact that your were wrong, "evolutionists" say nothing about Theia, geologists and astronomers study this, not biologists.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:56 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if gravity did draw all the rocks back together than all that would happen is that a bunch of rocks would collide.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 12:07 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if gravity did draw all the rocks back together than all that would happen is that a bunch of rocks would collide.

Wrong.  And you avoided the question, how do you explain the formation of the moon and don't forget to present your evidence...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:48 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how would a chunk of rock become our moon?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:47 AM on September 4, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how would a chunk of rock become our moon?

First of all, what is the moon except a giant chunk of rock?  Second of all, do you even know what the theory is for the formation of the moon, Third, you didn't answer my question, how do YOU propse the moon formed and site your evidence...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:41 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the moon is to round to have been a meteor. if gravity drew all the rocks together they would all just collide and create more rocks and dust. not fuse together.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:21 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the moon is to round to have been a meteor.

The moon isn't a meteor, never was...

if gravity drew all the rocks together they would all just collide and create more rocks and dust.

Where's your evidence?  Oh, that's right, you don't have any, you're just making unsupported claims...

not fuse together.

Yet, as the current theory proposes, the earth was not fully solidified when it was impacted, the material that fused into the moon was molten.  Don't you even know the specifics of the theory you're trying to debunk????
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:00 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evidence please.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:12 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NASA

"Scientists believe that the moon formed as a result of a collision known as the Giant Impact or the "Big Whack." According to this idea, Earth collided with a planet-sized object 4.6 billion years ago. As a result of the impact, a cloud of vaporized rock shot off Earth's surface and went into orbit around Earth. The cloud cooled and condensed into a ring of small, solid bodies, which then gathered together, forming the moon.

The rapid joining together of the small bodies released much energy as heat. Consequently, the moon melted, creating an "ocean" of magma (melted rock).

The magma ocean slowly cooled and solidified. As it cooled, dense, iron-rich materials sank deep into the moon. Those materials also cooled and solidified, forming the mantle, the layer of rock beneath the crust. "


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:48 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one 10 mile asteroid destroyed most of life on earth. a planet would destroy earth entirely


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:33 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one 10 mile asteroid destroyed most of life on earth. a planet would destroy earth
entirely


Wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:17 AM on September 7, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

srry. was it a 10 mile?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:50 AM on September 8, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, a small planet hitting the early earth would NOT destroy it.  By examining the evidence, it shows that a small planet hitting the early earth would produce the moon.  You have been unable to refute this evidence.  You can't pressent an alternate theory or the evidence to support it.  All you have is "Idon't believe...."
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:45 PM on September 8, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a moon? maybe. but earth would have been blown to chunks



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:56 AM on September 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a moon? maybe. but earth would have been blown to chunks

The evidence says you are wrong, how do you explain it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:38 PM on September 9, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

mars is about a third of the size of the earth. if it slammed into earth it would shatter the crust and quite possibly nock earth out of orbit around the sun.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:46 AM on September 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

mars is about a third of the size of the earth. if it slammed into earth it would shatter the crust and quite possibly nock earth out of orbit around the sun.

Possibly, but where's your evidence?  And When the moon was formed from the collison with Theia, earth's crust hadn't fully formed yet.  Theia hit earth at an oblique angle that destroyed most of theia but did not destroy the earth, the debris from both the earth and Theia formed the moon.  So no, a collision would not destroy the earth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:44 PM on September 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no the angle?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:43 PM on September 10, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.