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
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no the angle?

That's what the evidence indicates.  Now are you going to give us your alternate explaination and the evidence to support it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:11 PM on September 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me the evidence.


-------
"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: 6:40 PM on September 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me the evidence.

Look it up yourself!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:42 PM on September 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look it up yourself!

That is an invalid argument


-------
"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: 10:40 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is an invalid argument

I presented the evidence, it's the scientific concensus.  Until you (or anyone else) can refute it, the theory stands.  Once again, just because you don't understand it doesn't refute it.  The theory stands, the moon was created when a planet smaller than the earth, Theia, crashed into it over 4 billion years ago and the moon coalesced out the debris.  If you want to argue this point present your evidence and do your own research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:22 PM on September 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

coalesced out the debris

Yes, the debris, how could have debris have formed back into a 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: 7:36 PM on September 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, the debris, how could have debris have formed back into a planet.

Gravity.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:27 PM on September 20, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gravity draws rocks together and rocks smash together into dust.


-------
"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: 11:26 PM on September 20, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gravity draws rocks together and rocks smash together into dust.

Wrong.  From here:
MoonOrigin

"To model the accumulation of the moon from the impact-ejected debris, SwRI researchers track the interactions between particles as they orbit the Earth. This is typically done by using an N-body integration method, which explicitly calculates the gravitational force on each particle caused by every other particle in the simulation at each time-step. When orbiting particles collide with low enough impact energies, the result is a gravitationally bound aggregate. Such aggregates continue to grow in size as they collide, forming larger and larger bodies in a process called accretion."

So no, under the right conditions, like those that existed 4 billion years ago, the ejected matter would NOT crush itself into dust, it would form the moon, as all of the evidence and physics tell us.  Can you support your claim with ANY evidence?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:51 PM on September 20, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how would earth reform?


-------
"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: 09:23 AM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 08:23 AM on September 21, 2007 :
how would earth reform?


Each bit would be attracted to the center of mass, as collisions occur, the heat will build up so that the particles melt and coalesce.  I think non-melt accretion is primarily for low mass bodies like asteroids.  The asteroid Eros for instance seems to be a large rubble pile lightly stuck together, wheras the moon and earth were melted following the collision that formed them.


(Edited by Apoapsis 9/21/2007 at 4:19 PM).


-------
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: 3:58 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

as each collision occurs, there would be more dust than rocks


-------
"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: 6:16 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

as each collision occurs, there would be more dust than rocks

Already showed you this was wrong, why do you keep repeating this lie?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:00 AM on September 22, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

then how would this massive collision create a breathible atmosphere.


-------
"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: 2:16 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

then how would this massive collision create a breathible atmosphere.

What???  We're not talking about how a breathable atmosphere was created, we're talking about how the moon was formed.  You claimed that modern science was wrong but you haven't been able to support your claim.  Since you're changing the subject, can we take that as an admission that you are wrong?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:16 AM on September 24, 2007 | IP
The Voice

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a note on the age of the earth. According to Evo's, the earth is what 4 billion years old? Well 100 years ago they said it was only like 22 million or something (I can't remember exactly). And some smart guy did the math and according to his calctulations, the earth is ageing about like a 100's of 1000's of years a DAY.

PS: I don't want to be offenceive in my agurment, only to get my point across without waver. So sry if u take it wrong.


-------
John 1:23 KJV
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 1:21 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just a note on the age of the earth. According to Evo's, the earth is what 4 billion years old? Well 100 years ago they said it was only like 22 million or something (I can't remember exactly). And some smart guy did the math and according to his calctulations, the earth is ageing about like a 100's of 1000's of years a DAY.


"Some smart guy"?

lol


-------
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: 1:26 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In 1862, Lord Kelvin published calculations putting the age of the earth at between 24 and 400 million years.  This was not well accepted because in was much too low of a value to match the geological data.  His calculations were based on a simple thermodynamic cooling model of a solid iron body.  An 1895 cooling model of the earth as a thin layer of rock surrounding a molten fluid produced an age estimate between 2 and 3 billion years.

The discovery of radioactivity in 1896 provided an additional heat source which would lengthen the cooling time, and provided a mechanism for determining the actual time that had passed since a rock passed it's closure temperature.


-------
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: 1:50 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If there is anything I'm learning on this forum, its the fact that some people are unbelievable ignorant of science, and the history of science, let alone don't have a clue of how the scientific method works!

Back in the 19th century geologists knew that the earth had to be millions of years old.  This was obvious from examining sedimentary strata.  But they had no precise method at the time to measure exactly how old the earth was.

Science has advanced tremendously since Darwin's time over the last 150 years.  But the beautiful thing about Darwin's ideas of natural selection and common decent is that all the evidence that science has accumulated since that time has only strengthened and validated Darwinian evolution.  The discovery of genetics and DNA vindicated Darwin's ideas.

Physics was undergoing a revolution at the turn of the 20th century.  Nuclear physics, relativity, quantum mechanics were all being discovered.  With nuclear physics, an accurate method for measuring the age of rocks and fossils was available - the process of isotopic half-life dating process.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:53 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well 100 years ago they said it was only like 22 million or something (I can't remember exactly).

They didn't have radiometric dating 100 years ago.  What's your point?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:14 PM on October 17, 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.