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
     Vestigal organs:
       evolutionist red herring

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unless as yet unproven evolution is a false hypothesis, in which case vestigiality is indeed circular reasoning.

We observe whales have leg bones but no legs.  What is the explaination?  We observe that humans have a diminished appendix where other mammals have a full blown organ that aids in digestion.  A human appendix does not aid in digestion, yet it still has an opening to the large intestine.  Why?  The best explaination is evolution.  I can't see how this is circular.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:07 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:43 PM on April 14, 2009 :
derwood
But didn't you claim that any dictionary definition supports your circular reasoning claims?

That implies that you've ALREADY looked up the word (you clearly did not, you just trust your creationist sources - big mistake).


Actually I did look it up.


Odd then how you only latched onto one criterion - actually, not odd at all, that is what you folks do.


Vestigiality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The human vermiform appendix is a vestigial structure; it no longer retains its original function.

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have seemingly lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.

Vestigiality is one of several lines of evidence for biological evolution.


From biology online:
Vestigial

refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional. Not fully developed in mature animals; rudimentary wings.


derwood
Vestigiality is a byproduct of evolution, not a predicter.


Unless as yet unproven evolution is a false hypothesis, in which case vestigiality is indeed circular reasoning.


No, I;m sorry - repeating this over and over will not make it true.

Vestigianlity is an expectation, an observation, a prediction, but it is not used to 'prove' evolution excpet in that the expectations are met.



Calling people uneducated and idiotic does not a strawman make. I love the way you guys claim "strawman" whenever your arguments fall flat. And now I predict shrill insults and bombastic postulation.


No, employing strawman arguments and declaring superior knowledge while being clearly incorrect and underinformed makes one a user of fallacious reasoning and underinformed.

I note that the creto prefers to hide behind a shield of mock indignation rather than actually discuss their flawed positons.



The creto position here is akin to declaring experiments demonstrating gravity (i.e., rolling a ball down an incline) are circular reasoning because they assume gravity exists.

Simplistic.

Of course, the creto is the true circular reasoner - the bible is true because the bible tells us it is true.

(Edited by derwood 4/15/2009 at 08:19 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:16 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:14 AM on April 15, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 5:55 PM on March 31, 2009 :
I admit to being guilty of nit picking usually as a defense when my argument starts to unravel. I'll try not to.

What lester means by "general" entropy is not necessarily a mathematical formula but a general perception based on an observation:  systems break down. In any imaginable primordial environment environmental stresses would be extreme. As you know, energy often aids in the breakdown of complex systems. In a pristine laboratory environment with conscious effort applied the self ordering of chemicals into life and life into more complex life remains illusive.


"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?




And what IS "general entropy"?  Is that like the "general theory of evolution" these folks like to toss around?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:21 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Note the evo's use of stereotyping and mass generalization when mocking any creo's viewpoint:

...these folks like to toss around?
...that is what you folks do.
...repeating this over and over will not make it true.
...I note that the creto prefers to hide behind a shield of mock indignation rather than actually discuss their flawed positons.

apoapsis"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?

Why does the snowflake eventually melt? or why does it compact into solid ice? The snowflake is an expression of the energy inherent in the dipolar water molecule. Environmental energy flux causes the change in state. The snowflake organizes inside of an energized environment and then breaks down.

Snowflake = strawman.


derwood
And what IS "general entropy"?


Note the smart guy pretending to be stupid.
derwood, you ARE a strawman.

Vestigianlity is an expectation, an observation, a prediction, but it is not used to 'prove' evolution excpet in that the expectations are met.

An expectation of what? Evolution? An observation of what? Evolution? A prediction of what? Evolution? Without the expectation, observation or prediction of a preconceived notion "vestigiality" is meaningless. Unless you are referring to an individual organisms previous state in which case the word "vestige" certainly applies such as in the case of a belly button.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:10 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:10 AM on April 15, 2009 :

apoapsis"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?

Why does the snowflake eventually melt? or why does it compact into solid ice? The snowflake is an expression of the energy inherent in the dipolar water molecule. Environmental energy flux causes the change in state. The snowflake organizes inside of an energized environment and then breaks down.

Snowflake = strawman.


And note your sidestepping of the question.  A snowflake forms by going from a disordered state to an ordered state.  Isn't this what you claim is forbidden?  

Show us where the "General Law of Entropy" is written.  We can show you the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and it doesn't mean what you seem to think.



-------
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: 09:27 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:10 AM on April 15, 2009 :
Note the evo's use of stereotyping and mass generalization when mocking any creo's viewpoint:

...these folks like to toss around?
...that is what you folks do.
...repeating this over and over will not make it true.
...I note that the creto prefers to hide behind a shield of mock indignation rather than actually discuss their flawed positons.


Note the fact that the generalization and stereotyping was actually employed.
How ironic.

Of course, expressing my observations of more than 15 years of doing this is more of an issue of conclusions.  Stereotyping and generalization, after all, have their roots in observation.


apoapsis"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?

Why does the snowflake eventually melt? or why does it compact into solid ice? The snowflake is an expression of the energy inherent in the dipolar water molecule. Environmental energy flux causes the change in state. The snowflake organizes inside of an energized environment and then breaks down.

Snowflake = strawman.


No, it is a nice example of how the application of these idiosyncratic proclamations on the 'general law of entropy' are misapplications and distractions.


derwood
And what IS "general entropy"?


Note the smart guy pretending to be stupid.
derwood, you ARE a strawman.


How clever.

Simply admitting that you don't know would have sufficed.

Vestigianlity is an expectation, an observation, a prediction, but it is not used to 'prove' evolution excpet in that the expectations are met.

An expectation of what? Evolution? An observation of what? Evolution? A prediction of what? Evolution? Without the expectation, observation or prediction of a preconceived notion "vestigiality" is meaningless. Unless you are referring to an individual organisms previous state in which case the word "vestige" certainly applies such as in the case of a belly button.



So, is it circular to demonstrate gravity by rolling a ball down an incline?
We expect the ball to roll down the incline because of the effects of gravity, thus it is assumed that gravity exists and will 'pull' the ball down, and when this happens, gravity's effects are demonstrated.

Circular reasoning, right?  Let's all protest the teaching of physics!


A belly button is a develomental remnant.  It is not something passed on to offspring due to allele expression.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:34 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:27 AM on April 15, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 08:10 AM on April 15, 2009 :

apoapsis"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?

Why does the snowflake eventually melt? or why does it compact into solid ice? The snowflake is an expression of the energy inherent in the dipolar water molecule.  The snowflake organizes inside of an energized environment and then breaks down.

Snowflake = strawman.


And note your sidestepping of the question.  A snowflake forms by going from a disordered state to an ordered state.  Isn't this what you claim is forbidden?  

Show us where the "General Law of Entropy" is written.  We can show you the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and it doesn't mean what you seem to think.




Interestingly, timbrx's 'explanation' seems to sort of undermine the usual fluff that creationists toss out about energy flow and entropy.  If he says that snowflakes can form and melt and ice can form and melt as the result of local "Environmental energy flux causes the change in state", then what is the problem?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:38 AM on April 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 09:38 AM on April 15, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 09:27 AM on April 15, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 08:10 AM on April 15, 2009 :

apoapsis"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?

Why does the snowflake eventually melt? or why does it compact into solid ice? The snowflake is an expression of the energy inherent in the dipolar water molecule.  The snowflake organizes inside of an energized environment and then breaks down.

Snowflake = strawman.


And note your sidestepping of the question.  A snowflake forms by going from a disordered state to an ordered state.  Isn't this what you claim is forbidden?  

Show us where the "General Law of Entropy" is written.  We can show you the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and it doesn't mean what you seem to think.




Interestingly, timbrx's 'explanation' seems to sort of undermine the usual fluff that creationists toss out about energy flow and entropy.  If he says that snowflakes can form and melt and ice can form and melt as the result of local "Environmental energy flux causes the change in state", then what is the problem?



If I'm not mistaken, in a closed environment you can't have an energy flux.  By definition a closed environment cannot have an input of energy, nor lose energy.  But an 'energy flux' implies that the energy in the environment is changing - thus that environment can't be a closed system.  The 2nd law only applies to closed systems.

Is the earth a closed system/environment?  I think even creationists will agree that the earth gets a constant input of energy from the sun.  Therefore the earth is not a closed system.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:47 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Note the evo's use of stereotyping and mass generalization when mocking any creo's viewpoint:
That's true... Well, it can barely be helped.

It's people like you the reason why i try not to, but it's really hard. I mean, derwood is right. You do all that.

You toss around terms and numbers that you don't understand... And sometimes we don't understand either, like "general entropy".

timbrx
derwood
And what IS "general entropy"?
Note the smart guy pretending to be stupid.
Sorry, man, but his question is legit.

I don't know what you mean by that. And i would like to.

If by "general" you mean that the whole of any isolated system decays, then you're right, and we do know about that simple fact.

If by "general" you mean that any part of any system, isolated or not, is decaying, then you're just mistaken. It's false.

timbrx
apoapsis
"General entropy" is a strawman.

How does a snowflake form under "general entropy"?
Why does the snowflake eventually melt?
Because of the entropy, if you want.
You didn't answer the valid question.
or why does it compact into solid ice?
Mmm... Because of gravity?
The snowflake is an expression of the energy inherent in the dipolar water molecule. Environmental energy flux causes the change in state. The snowflake organizes inside of an energized environment and then breaks down.
Aha... Hum...
It does sound like life and death to me.
If snowflakes could self-replicate, they would have probably mastered the secret of multisnowflakism, communication, and perhaps even religions and snowball wars.

Snowflake = strawman.
Why? We don't say it's you who use the snowflakes as an argument. It is our argument, and thus, no strawman.
You can't strawman yourself.




timbrx
derwood
Vestigianlity is an expectation, an observation, a prediction, but it is not used to 'prove' evolution excpet in that the expectations are met.

An expectation of what? Evolution? An observation of what? Evolution? A prediction of what? Evolution? Without the expectation, observation or prediction of a preconceived notion "vestigiality" is meaningless.
I've already shown you that you're wrong about that.
Some cases of vestigiality could make sense without any need to invoke Evolution. Like the dog's back kick (used once to bury its feces, i hope we agree).
That could be explained by devolution. If devolution was true then, within the boundaries of your accepted field of action of Natural Selection, you should expect vital traits to devolve slower than non-vital traits (i hope we agree on this one too).

But yeah, some cases of vestigiality make no sense without the ToE (like goose bumps and toe nails, which you refuse to mention).

Just like planetary orbits make no sense without Gravity.

Again (and again and again) that's not circular at all. And it's certainly not a problem. Not for the ToE at least.

For vestigiality to need the ToE is seen as a defect by you. Ok, let's pretend you're right about that.
Then that demonstrates that there was no circularity. Because it's not a problem for the ToE.
If any fact needs the ToE to be explained, even if that is a defect for the factuality that fact, it helps the ToE.

Can you pinpoint any holes in my reasoning? I really can't.

Unless you are referring to an individual organisms previous state in which case the word "vestige" certainly applies such as in the case of a belly button.
You know we don't. Not when we're talking about Evolution. But perhaps it's a valid remark.

I was as respectful as i could. I hope you can concede some point.

orion
If I'm not mistaken, in a closed environment you can't have an energy flux.
You can have a flux between the parts of any system, isolated or not.
But any isolated system is decaying.
Non isolated systems, not necessarily.

If a system receives a constant little input of energy, but the constant output is higher, it's also decaying. But it will reach some stability in the future.

The Earth is pretty stable.
Rain falls down (energy is released and lost), but it will be regained when the sun vaporizes it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:55 PM on April 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

General entropy- Systems generally run down. Energy runs out. Nothing is perpetual.

Entropy in general is summed up quite well by wisp:
You can have a flux between the parts of any system, isolated or not.
But any isolated system is decaying.
Non isolated systems, not necessarily.

If a system receives a constant little input of energy, but the constant output is higher, it's also decaying. But it will reach some stability in the future.

The Earth is pretty stable.
Rain falls down (energy is released and lost), but it will be regained when the sun vaporizes it.

I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.

Why? We don't say it's you who use the snowflakes as an argument. It is our argument, and thus, no strawman.
You can't strawman yourself.

Are you saying that only evos can invoke the "strawman" argument silencer?
You post the snowflake strawman to make our entropy argument look foolish when the snowflake is a change in molecular state and not a molecular change at all.

Toe nails - coverings for the ends of the toe. Would be useless if we were born with shoes on.
Goose bumps- increases dead air space between skin and hair. (Insulation)
Ok, I mentioned them. What makes you think these are vestigial?

orion
If I'm not mistaken, in a closed environment you can't have an energy flux.  By definition a closed environment cannot have an input of energy, nor lose energy.  But an 'energy flux' implies that the energy in the environment is changing - thus that environment can't be a closed system.  The 2nd law only applies to closed systems.

How does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?

Is the earth a closed system/environment?  I think even creationists will agree that the earth gets a constant input of energy from the sun.  Therefore the earth is not a closed system.

But is the solar system a closed system?


derwood
Interestingly, timbrx's 'explanation' seems to sort of undermine the usual fluff that creationists toss out about energy flow and entropy.  If he says that snowflakes can form and melt and ice can form and melt as the result of local "Environmental energy flux causes the change in state", then what is the problem?

The problem is that the water molecule is "seeking" a resting state. In a complete absence of outside influence it will find its lowest state and stay there. It is ironic that water forming ice in the air increases the complexity of its shape. But the molecule itself does not increase in complexity. And the water molecule itself though prone to a change in state is actually a very stable molecule. An amino acid, on the other hand, is not very stable at all.

derwood
So, is it circular to demonstrate gravity by rolling a ball down an incline?
We expect the ball to roll down the incline because of the effects of gravity, thus it is assumed that gravity exists and will 'pull' the ball down, and when this happens, gravity's effects are demonstrated.

Gravity doesn't "require" motion to be demonstrable. Vestigiality "requires" evolution to be demonstrated.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:17 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:17 AM on April 16, 2009 :
General entropy- Systems generally run down. Energy runs out. Nothing is perpetual.

Entropy in general is summed up quite well by wisp:
You can have a flux between the parts of any system, isolated or not.
But any isolated system is decaying.
Non isolated systems, not necessarily.

If a system receives a constant little input of energy, but the constant output is higher, it's also decaying. But it will reach some stability in the future.

The Earth is pretty stable.
Rain falls down (energy is released and lost), but it will be regained when the sun vaporizes it.

I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.


So the "general law" is merely anecdotal, and in no way replaces the other laws of thermodynamics which place no prohibition on the development of complex molecules or evolution.  

You evidently missed this paper:
A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code

Thank you, you may now quit using this as an argument.


derwood
So, is it circular to demonstrate gravity by rolling a ball down an incline?
We expect the ball to roll down the incline because of the effects of gravity, thus it is assumed that gravity exists and will 'pull' the ball down, and when this happens, gravity's effects are demonstrated.

Gravity doesn't "require" motion to be demonstrable. Vestigiality "requires" evolution to be demonstrated.


How do you demonstrate gravity without motion?

The effect of gravity is an acceleration on a mass.  That acceleration results in motion unless there in an opposing force.  Even the measurement of that force requires a motion.

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/16/2009 at 08:18 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: 08:13 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.
Indeed.
Earth isn't decaying, but the solar system (Earth included) is. And fast.


Why? We don't say it's you who use the snowflakes as an argument. It is our argument, and thus, no strawman.
You can't strawman yourself.
Are you saying that only evos can invoke the "strawman" argument silencer?
Not at all.
I'm saying that the snowflake is not a strawman.

Diggz Dime (in Quick Question for Creationists) used strawmen against creationism. I shut him up myself.
I really dislike strawmen.
If an argument is your own, it's not a strawman.
It's a strawman if you say that the other guy said it.
We never said you used the snowflake as your own argument.
But you did say that everything decays. And snowflakes built up (before decaying, like everything will decay).
We're snowflakes!

You post the snowflake strawman
Not a strawman. The part of the argument that we say you said, you did say: everything decays.
to make our entropy argument look foolish
It wasn't your argument until quite recently.
The argument itself is not particularly foolish. The foolish thing is to use it without really understanding Entropy. Well, not foolish either... Just desperate. Sorry.
It may constitute a reasonable high school question. If i was a high school professor i'd congratulate the question. But the answer is negative.

If any increase of information was a miracle, then we see miracles all around us.
The human genome has around 3 billion base pairs, each of which stores two bits (to indicate one of four bases).

That's 6 billion bits, or about 3/4 of a gigabyte.
Less than 1 giga. As you can well imagine individual organisms contain much more "information" than that. Where does that information come from?
We should be careful when talking about "information" (and miracles, for that matter).

when the snowflake is a change in molecular state and not a molecular change at all.
Oh... I understand the difference. But it doesn't affect Entropy. Entropy grows without knowing the difference.
I mean, the distinction is a real one (you're right), but it doesn't happen to matter (when we're talking about Entropy).

You think that the snowflake is just settling down, while the proteins are growing something, and thus the first one is in harmony with Entropy, while the second violates it somehow. Am i right?

That's not true either. The snowflake settles down by releasing energy, just like proteins when forming (or any other exothermic chemical reaction).

Entropy is the constant flow of heat out of the flame of a candle. It's killing the candle. Yet at the same time is the very thing that makes it live.

In spite of gluteus, Entropy really does help Life.

---
Toe nails - coverings for the ends of the toe.
You think we need toe nails???
Coverings? Why?
We don't have coverings for, say, the elbows, or the knees (which would have made more sense to protect us from falls, since we walk in two legs).

Toe nails are no good.
Yeah, if you take them out you suffer, but because they were there! They shouldn't be there in the first place. They're not helpful at all, even if we don't have shoes.

Toenails protect nail beds, yeah, but... You see where i'm getting at, right? It's a vicious circle.
Nail beds need nails, nails need nail beds.

But that's not even particularly true. People who lose nails just develop tougher nail beds (i did my research).
I appreciate my fingernails. But they're not there to protect anything. They just don't.

Perhaps they are hard to devolve because there's a point in its devolution that makes them more prone to infection, and that's how we haven't lost them entirely.

Would be useless if we were born with shoes on.
If we don't use feet as hands, toe nails are completely useless.

Goose bumps- increases dead air space between skin and hair. (Insulation)
Exactly!!! That's exactly what they do!
That and make you appear bigger to a foe.
Unless, of course, if you happen to be human.

Unless you believe that Adam was furry, and we devolved that trait.
You would certainly shut me up about goose bumps. I promise, i would shut up and say you provided a good answer. Scout's honor.
But my guess is that you won't, simply because you won't like a furry Adam. Just because.

Ok, I mentioned them. What makes you think these are vestigial?
Again, even if you say that Adam was furry, goose bumps are vestigial because of devolution.

Goose bumps don't help Evolution much because they only imply that we were furry, but it doesn't imply that we developed anything while losing our fur. So it could be devolution related to a loosened selective pressure (we learned how to dress ourselves up).

I just use it because i guess that creationists won't like a furry Adam. That's all.

If they embrace this concept of a furry Adam, i don't see right now how they would be losing ground, but i think they would believe that they are.

Goose bumps are truly vestigial in any case.

But toe nails is good evidence for Evolution. We couldn't have lost its function (we did) without evolving something else (walking in two legs).

How does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?
I thought you understood that.
It does apply.
If you put icy soda and hot coffee in separate glasses within some isolated recipient, they will grow in Entropy. A closed system growing in Entropy.

Entropy doesn't grow here on Earth EXACTLY BECAUSE it's not a closed system.
If it was, things would decay quite fast.
Not only things would die. Mountains would crumble down, holes would be filled up. That's Entropy also.

An ember grows in entropy by losing energy. An ice cube grows in entropy by gaining energy.

Entropy is NOT energy loss.

A hole has a sort of "negative" energy. And you can use that just like "positive" energy.

You can let big stones go down the hole, being attached by a rope that moves a dynamo.
When you fill the hole, you can extract no more energy.

Another way to see it is that the big stones already had potential energy, and they lose it being lowered down the hole.

A mountain has a lot of potential energy. But if everything else had the same height you couldn't use it.

Embers can provide energy. But so can ice cubes.

There are materials that change shapes at different temperatures. I could design (nah, i couldn't, but bear with me) a system that used an ice cube to bend a thin rod of this material, that in turn pulled some cord that moved a motor.

I wouldn't make any ice fueled airplanes, but i could make an ice fueled boat.

Again, you could say that the energy actually comes from the bending (relatively warm) material, and not from the ice cube. But it's the same.

Entropy is the tendency of things to even out, thus becoming energetically useless.

When i was a teen i deemed Entropy the monster of the Universe. Until i made my meditation on the candle.

But without Entropy, all energy would be useless.

But is the solar system a closed system?
Not strictly. But it's main interaction is with empty space. And it's one-way. So it decays faster than if it was an isolated system.
But in a sense it is isolated. In the sense that it does not interact with anything.
If our universe contained just our Solar System and lots of empty space, it wouldn't make entropic difference, and it WOULD be an isolated system.

The problem is that the water molecule is "seeking" a resting state. In a complete absence of outside influence it will find its lowest state and stay there. It is ironic that water forming ice in the air increases the complexity of its shape. But the molecule itself does not increase in complexity. And the water molecule itself though prone to a change in state is actually a very stable molecule. An amino acid, on the other hand, is not very stable at all.
I treated the subject up there.

I can tell you with little fear of being wrong that the molecules that you mention are more stable than the atoms that built them.

The only exception would be energy input.

I'm not trying to deceive you, timbrx. Entropy does not prevent Evolution.

I taught myself most of what i know about Entropy. I conducted my own experiments (most of them mental, for i was always lazy). The same goes with Evolution (i begun to read about it just last year, i think, but i developed a lot by myself).
I'm not saying that it's the best way to learn things (even if it might be a very good way to acquire reasoning skills). What i'm going at is that i wasn't indoctrinated. You have to believe me.
I think you do believe that i'm not trying to deceive you.
I guess i can't ask you to trust that if Entropy presented a problem for Evolution i would have thought of it.
So i'm not trustworthy, and the scientists are biased...

At least i hope you don't trust answersingenesis.com
Do you?

I read about a series of experiments on artificial evolution. The first models gave a poor account of energy.
The virtual critters needed to eat (and mate to produce offspring). They could eat bits of energy (grass, you could say), or other critters.
But having offspring didn't cost energy.
BIG MISTAKE!

They learned how to beat the system. They cheated.
They learned (evolved) how to make pagan orgies and devouring their children.
Some children survived by chance. And they were born from parents who devoured their offspring in their orgies, so they did the same.

My point is that you can emulate Entropy too. And it won't stop Evolution. And no matter how much you wish it was different for real living things (and living things from snowflakes). They're not any different. Not in the important evolutionary aspects.

And if they were, and Entropy somehow (in a way that we ignore) prevented Evolution, then God made some positive effort to prevent Evolution. Now why would He do that?

- - -
Gravity doesn't "require" motion to be demonstrable. Vestigiality "requires" evolution to be demonstrated.
Yes, it does.

I guess you mean that you can feel the gravitational pull. If that's it, we'll discuss it (but i tell you beforehand that there's no way to demonstrate gravity without movement).
If that's not it, please, explain.

Vestigiality "requires" evolution to be demonstrated.
Yet again, it does not. Not always. Goose bumps don't. They just require a fur loss.
You can't evolve just by losing stuff.


(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 09:19 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:21 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:17 AM on April 16, 2009 :
General entropy- Systems generally run down. Energy runs out. Nothing is perpetual.


What types of systems?

Closed?

Open?

All of them?

If entropy increasesin one part of a cloased system, can it decrease in another?

Is a grown tree more or less 'ordered' than a seed?


I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.

It converts mass into energy.

Are you saying that only evos can invoke the "strawman" argument silencer?

I would say that only evos tend to employ the application of the charge of 'strawman' argument accurately.


You post the snowflake strawman to make our entropy argument look foolish when the snowflake is a change in molecular state and not a molecular change at all.


A snowflake is more ordered, i.e., has less entropy than the water vapor it formed from.  It is an apt and relevant example of the weakness in the application of this concept of "general entropy".

Toe nails - coverings for the ends of the toe. Would be useless if we were born with shoes on.


I'll bet you are serious...


Goose bumps- increases dead air space between skin and hair. (Insulation)


What causes goosebumps?

Why do humans get goosebumps when they are frightened or angry, not just cold?



Ok, I mentioned them. What makes you think these are vestigial?


Have you ever seen a cat get goosebumps?


How does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?

The energy is converted to heat.  Basic physics.

Is the earth a closed system/environment?  I think even creationists will agree that the earth gets a constant input of energy from the sun.  Therefore the earth is not a closed system.

But is the solar system a closed system?


I see no wall around it.

derwood
Interestingly, timbrx's 'explanation' seems to sort of undermine the usual fluff that creationists toss out about energy flow and entropy.  If he says that snowflakes can form and melt and ice can form and melt as the result of local "Environmental energy flux causes the change in state", then what is the problem?

The problem is that the water molecule is "seeking" a resting state. In a complete absence of outside influence it will find its lowest state and stay there.

Interesting.  So it is it's environment that dictates whether or not its entropy increases or decreases.  So, if the environment dictates that, say, only molecules of a certain chirality can form, and that same environment even catalyzes the polymerization of these molecules, is that an increase or a decrease in the system's general entropy?

If, by the use of energy, molecules can be pushed toward their 'restign state', is that OK?


What dictate's 'resting state', by the way?


It is ironic that water forming ice in the air increases the complexity of its shape. But the molecule itself does not increase in complexity.


And thus the creationist shifts the goalposts.

This happens whenever what they thought was a good point is shown to be trivial at best.  First, you are saying that the law of 'general entropy' dictates that all things tend to disorder, thus evolution is impossible (by extension). This is not the case; it is in fact trivial to show that entropy decreases all the time.  Now you want to talk about not just the 'general entropy' of a system, but the increasing 'complexity' of individual molecules.
What does molecular complexity have to do with the fact that the 'law of general entropy' is not what it was purported to be?

Does not a catalyzed reaction's products have a lower energy state that their reactants?


And the water molecule itself though prone to a change in state is actually a very stable molecule. An amino acid, on the other hand, is not very stable at all.


Do tell.

How unstable is it thermodynamically?
And what is the relevance of this?

derwood
So, is it circular to demonstrate gravity by rolling a ball down an incline?
We expect the ball to roll down the incline because of the effects of gravity, thus it is assumed that gravity exists and will 'pull' the ball down, and when this happens, gravity's effects are demonstrated.

Gravity doesn't "require" motion to be demonstrable. Vestigiality "requires" evolution to be demonstrated.

Then please demonstrate gravity without motion.

I will eagerly await this demonstration.

And while you are at it, please explain to us all what gravity even IS.



(Edited by derwood 4/16/2009 at 08:23 AM).

(Edited by derwood 4/16/2009 at 08:26 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:21 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Then please demonstrate gravity without motion.


As I looked at my computer monitor I noticed that it was sitting on my desk. It is actually NOT moving because gravity was holding it in place. If I suddenly shift the plane it rests on out of, say, frustration, than it will MOVE because of gravity.

And while you are at it, please explain to us all what gravity even IS.

No thanks. I'll leave the imaginative guessing to you.

apoapsis
Thank you, you may now quit using this as an argument.

Thank you, It's actually not my favorite argument. I'm not even sure how we got into that on this thread anyway.

wisp, when you're not trying to be a smart ass you can really put together a worthy summation. I guess both traits are useful in your profession. You've given me very little to argue with. But I will pick up on toe nails and fur later.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:06 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:06 AM on April 16, 2009 :
derwood
Then please demonstrate gravity without motion.


As I looked at my computer monitor I noticed that it was sitting on my desk. It is actually NOT moving because gravity was holding it in place. If I suddenly shift the plane it rests on out of, say, frustration, than it will MOVE because of gravity.


No, it's not moving because the desk is supplying the opposing force.

How would you measure that?




-------
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: 09:14 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:06 AM on April 16, 2009 :
derwood
Then please demonstrate gravity without motion.


As I looked at my computer monitor I noticed that it was sitting on my desk. It is actually NOT moving because gravity was holding it in place. If I suddenly shift the plane it rests on out of, say, frustration, than it will MOVE because of gravity.


And besides, you have just demonstrated gravity using motion.




-------
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: 09:26 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
timbrxHow does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?
The energy is converted to heat.  Basic physics.
Not exactly.
"Energy gets dispersed" is the correct answer.

Heat is energy too.
What makes it a low form of energy is its dispersion. If heat is focused, it's useful.

We see it as the lowest form of energy simply because every other form of energy tends, ultimately, to get dispersed as heat. But dispersion is what really matters.

derwood
timbrx
It is ironic that water forming ice in the air increases the complexity of its shape. But the molecule itself does not increase in complexity.
And thus the creationist shifts the goalposts.
That's true. We were never talking about molecular complexity, but structural complexity.

So, molecular complexity... What about the diamond?
Did you know that the biggest diamond is just a single molecule?
How did it form if molecular complexity is forbidden by Entropy?

Yeah, i can tell it's not your favorite argument. You had never used it before.
Why do you feel that you need to defend it?

As I looked at my computer monitor I noticed that it was sitting on my desk. It is actually NOT moving because gravity was holding it in place.
Gravity moves things. You're demonstrating your desk.

wisp, when you're not trying to be a smart ass you can really put together a worthy summation.
Thanks. Sorry about the other occasions. But Lester makes it hard for me not to. Gluteus makes it even harder.
You've given me very little to argue with. But I will pick up on toe nails and fur later.
Ok. Cheers.


(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 09:43 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:42 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:06 AM on April 16, 2009 :
derwood
Then please demonstrate gravity without motion.


As I looked at my computer monitor I noticed that it was sitting on my desk. It is actually NOT moving because gravity was holding it in place. If I suddenly shift the plane it rests on out of, say, frustration, than it will MOVE because of gravity.

Actually, it is not moving because no force was applied to it and friction is holding it in place.
If you move the plane it rests on, it will move due to inertia, not gravity.

Of course, if you moved the plane, you will have needed motion.

Sorry.




And while you are at it, please explain to us all what gravity even IS.

No thanks. I'll leave the imaginative guessing to you.


So you don't know.

I don't either.  I guess physics is all guesses and speculation - heck, they can't even tell us what one of the basic 'forces' in nature is!  Let's get physics out of the schools!

Another little creto tactic - only reply to some points, ignore the rest, and move on...



General entropy- Systems generally run down. Energy runs out. Nothing is perpetual.


What types of systems?

Closed?

Open?

All of them?

If entropy increasesin one part of a cloased system, can it decrease in another?

Is a grown tree more or less 'ordered' than a seed?


I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.

It converts mass into energy.

Are you saying that only evos can invoke the "strawman" argument silencer?

I would say that only evos tend to employ the application of the charge of 'strawman' argument accurately.


You post the snowflake strawman to make our entropy argument look foolish when the snowflake is a change in molecular state and not a molecular change at all.


A snowflake is more ordered, i.e., has less entropy than the water vapor it formed from.  It is an apt and relevant example of the weakness in the application of this concept of "general entropy".

Toe nails - coverings for the ends of the toe. Would be useless if we were born with shoes on.


I'll bet you are serious...


Goose bumps- increases dead air space between skin and hair. (Insulation)


What causes goosebumps?

Why do humans get goosebumps when they are frightened or angry, not just cold?



Ok, I mentioned them. What makes you think these are vestigial?


Have you ever seen a cat get goosebumps?


How does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?

The energy is converted to heat.  Basic physics.

Is the earth a closed system/environment?  I think even creationists will agree that the earth gets a constant input of energy from the sun.  Therefore the earth is not a closed system.

But is the solar system a closed system?


I see no wall around it.

derwood
Interestingly, timbrx's 'explanation' seems to sort of undermine the usual fluff that creationists toss out about energy flow and entropy.  If he says that snowflakes can form and melt and ice can form and melt as the result of local "Environmental energy flux causes the change in state", then what is the problem?

The problem is that the water molecule is "seeking" a resting state. In a complete absence of outside influence it will find its lowest state and stay there.

Interesting.  So it is it's environment that dictates whether or not its entropy increases or decreases.  So, if the environment dictates that, say, only molecules of a certain chirality can form, and that same environment even catalyzes the polymerization of these molecules, is that an increase or a decrease in the system's general entropy?

If, by the use of energy, molecules can be pushed toward their 'restign state', is that OK?


What dictate's 'resting state', by the way?


It is ironic that water forming ice in the air increases the complexity of its shape. But the molecule itself does not increase in complexity.


And thus the creationist shifts the goalposts.

This happens whenever what they thought was a good point is shown to be trivial at best.  First, you are saying that the law of 'general entropy' dictates that all things tend to disorder, thus evolution is impossible (by extension). This is not the case; it is in fact trivial to show that entropy decreases all the time.  Now you want to talk about not just the 'general entropy' of a system, but the increasing 'complexity' of individual molecules.
What does molecular complexity have to do with the fact that the 'law of general entropy' is not what it was purported to be?

Does not a catalyzed reaction's products have a lower energy state that their reactants?


And the water molecule itself though prone to a change in state is actually a very stable molecule. An amino acid, on the other hand, is not very stable at all.


Do tell.

How unstable is it thermodynamically?
And what is the relevance of this?

(Edited by derwood 4/16/2009 at 10:11 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:05 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:13 AM on April 16, 2009 :
How do you demonstrate gravity without motion?

The effect of gravity is an acceleration on a mass.  That acceleration results in motion unless there in an opposing force.  Even the measurement of that force requires a motion.


Creationists need only make assertions to be "right".

That is how so many people buy the nonsense they say - the standards are much, much different in the creationist camp than they are in reality.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:07 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

About camps:
Camp Quest.

(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 2:04 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:00 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll freely admit that I have not waded through all four pages of discussion to see if I am duplicating someone else's efforts here, so I apologize if this has been addressed already.

The problem I have with creationists using vestigial organs as a "problem" in ToE and therefore a fatal flaw is the same problem I have with many of their arguments.  Namely, creationists love to grab at a handful of "controversies" in evolutionary biology that, they say, undermine the whole theory.  But this tactic assumes that the ToE is a big "Jenga" game - pull out one block and it all goes tumbling.  What the ToE actually says is that if the ToE is true, we should expect to find that the vast majority of observations of the natural world are congruent with this theory, that the vast majority of laboratory studies support it.  THEY DO.  And if the vast majority support the theory, then when something does not seem to fit, one can comfortably entertain reasons for this OTHER THAN "the whole theory must be wrong."  And if further science (NOT speculation and not thought exercises) bears out an explanation for the anomoly that is at least not incongruent with the theory, then those anomalous examples cease to be reasons to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 3:40 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like your Jenga approach.

They not only believe that the whole ToE will fall down just by their pointing out a little difficulty, but that the force of that fall will somehow raise YEC to validity.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:02 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, exactly.  Those two logical fallacies are the foundation of the creationist's attack on the ToE.  I don't know the terms for different kinds of logical fallacies, maybe you or someone else can help me out in this regard!
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 4:09 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There you go.

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml

It's a mixture of the Achilles' heel fallacy with a false dilemma.

Edit: That list is not thorough. I can mention the ipse dixit ("himself said") for example. It's when they say "Gould himself said that (...)".

The response to that is "Fuck Gould. YOU show me the evidence and the reasoning behind your claim."

It's very likely that they're misquoting or quote mining. But why do we have to check every quote they copypaste from their sites?


(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 5:44 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:25 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:25 PM on April 16, 2009 :


http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml

It's a mixture of the Achilles' heel fallacy with a false dilemma.

Edit: That list is not thorough. I can mention the ipse dixit ("himself said") for example. It's when they say "Gould himself said that (...)".


[size=1][/size]


That link was extremely helpful, in part because I see that others have said what I was trying to - but far more eloquently.  I am putting the term "ipse dixet" in my arsenal, as well.

In an intellectually honest debate, the creationists would have to put these fallacies to bed after they've been revealed as such, and come up with new stuff; the fact that they don't indicates to me dishonesty rather than ignorance.  Because they know this kind of glib attack will be persuasive to inattentive listeners/readers.


 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 5:55 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me see if I follow the logic here.

1. an evo uses vestigial organs in an argument defending evolution.
2. a creo doubts that "vestigial" is even a valid term unless it is supported by the TOE.
3. the creo makes a case that "vestigial" is a red herring or "strawman".
4. the evos disagree.
5. since the evos and the creos can't seem to grasp each others point, the evos mount a concerted attack on creos in general in order to discredit the assertion that "vestgial" is a strawman based on circular reasoning.
6. the creo is supposed to give up the assertion because it is an "intellectually dishonest and glib fallacy".

Now please explain: how is it that the creos
are considered intolerant and closed minded and the evos are open minded and intellectually honest?


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 7:54 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:05 AM on April 16, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 09:06 AM on April 16, 2009 :
derwood
Then please demonstrate gravity without motion.


As I looked at my computer monitor I noticed that it was sitting on my desk. It is actually NOT moving because gravity was holding it in place. If I suddenly shift the plane it rests on out of, say, frustration, than it will MOVE because of gravity.

Actually, it is not moving because no force was applied to it and friction is holding it in place.
If you move the plane it rests on, it will move due to inertia, not gravity.


OK, a little physics lesson.  The monitor is continually accelerated downwards by gravity.  The desk provides an equal and opposing force that prevents it from crashing to the floor.  The force is transferred via electrostatic repulsion between the electrons in the monitor and the desk.  The desk could be frictionless as long the desk is perfectly level (normal to the gravity vector).  If the desk were frictionless and removed instantly (a common occurrence in freshman physics problems), the monitor would remain in place due to inertia, then begin to move towards the floor at the acceleration of gravity, 9.8m/s^2.



-------
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: 8:35 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The first post of this thread contains a strawman argument:

Quote from timbrx at 3:29 PM on March 23, 2009 :
Even though wisp seems to prefer the shotgun approach to the "well what about ..." diversion technique, I, for one, prefer the exhaustive topic method. If wisp chooses to answer this with rapid fire "well what about...'s" I'd be happy to start a new thread on a single topic of his choice.

(from biology online) vestigial organ:
A rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structure or organ in the lower animals.


The term vestigial organ or vestigial structure seems to be applied to any structure in which the use is not readily apparent. The appendix, for example, has long been believed to be a useless vestige. Recently, however, it has been shown to be important in the development of antibodies in developing babies and young children. It is also used throughout adulthood as a reservoir for good bacteria.

Of the nearly 180 structures previously identified as vestigial in humans nearly all have been found to have some use. Some are even very highly developed and specialized.


Did Wisp ever say anything about "structure in which the use is not readily apparent"???

Where did that come from?


-------
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: 8:43 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So is gravity acting on the monitor while it is sitting still on my desk? Yes? The gravitational effect on my monitor is demonstrated without movement. Yes, the effect would be far more obvious with applied motion but motion is not necessary to the demonstration.

What would happen if you could turn off the gravity? Would it remain still? Or would it drift off? I guess that would depend on if it were in a vacuum.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:49 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. an evo uses vestigial organs in an argument defending evolution.

Biologists present evidence that vestigial structures are best explained by evolution.

2. a creo doubts that "vestigial" is even a valid term unless it is supported by the
TOE.


Creationists can provide no evidence for any other explaination for vestigial structures.  In a ridiculou, last ditch effort, they claim vestigial structures do not exist, once again ignoring all available data (leg bones in whales, teeth in platypus embyoes, etc.).

3. the creo makes a case that "vestigial" is a red herring or "strawman".

Unable to deal with the evidence, creationists fall back on their old reliable, worthless standby, "Goddidit!"

4. the evos disagree.

Biologists present evidence that directly refutes the creationists claim, the creationists promptly ignore it.

5. since the evos and the creos can't seem to grasp each others point, the evos mount a concerted attack on creos in general in order to discredit the assertion that "vestgial" is a strawman based on circular reasoning.

When the creationists can't deal with the evidence they cry "No Fair!" And ignore all the evidence again.

6. the creo is supposed to give up the assertion because it is an "intellectually dishonest and glib fallacy".

Well, I'll agree with you here...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:50 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 7:54 PM on April 16, 2009 :
Let me see if I follow the logic here.

1. an evo uses vestigial organs in an argument defending evolution.
2. a creo doubts that "vestigial" is even a valid term unless it is supported by the TOE.
3. the creo makes a case that "vestigial" is a red herring or "strawman".


Um, here is the problem.

Merely writing something is not the same as making a case.
You surley did not in any way make such a case.
It is neither a red herring nor a strawman.  The concept of vestigiality is an observation that is explained by evolution.  It is explained away by creationists.

4. the evos disagree.
5. since the evos and the creos can't seem to grasp each others point, the evos mount a concerted attack on creos in general in order to discredit the assertion that "vestgial" is a strawman based on circular reasoning.


Because it is not.  Asserting that it is - even over and over - will not make it true.

I suppose you think the use of index fossils is circular, too?


6. the creo is supposed to give up the assertion because it is an "intellectually dishonest and glib fallacy".

An honest one with some intellectual acumen would, yes.

Now please explain: how is it that the creos
are considered intolerant and closed minded and the evos are open minded and intellectually honest?

Um, so now we are intolerant and closedminded because we do not acccept faulty logic and false accusations?
Is that what creatinism really needs to be valid - opponants who will let creationists make false claims and accept them at face value?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:06 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:49 PM on April 16, 2009 :
So is gravity acting on the monitor while it is sitting still on my desk? Yes? The gravitational effect on my monitor is demonstrated without movement.

Only is you assume that what is keeping the monitor there is this mysterious "force" called gravity.
Why assume that?

You can't see it.  You can't even tell me what it is, yet you 'believe' it holds your computer down!  ABSURD!


Yes, the effect would be far more obvious with applied motion but motion is not necessary to the demonstration.

It is for me.  I need to see it.  UNless I see it with my own eyes, there is no reason for me to accept it.

What would happen if you could turn off the gravity? Would it remain still? Or would it drift off? I guess that would depend on if it were in a vacuum.

I don't believe any of it.  I think my personal deity holds everything together.

Prove me wrong.

And when you can't, I want my theory taught in physics classes.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:09 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You must have forgotten this stuff
Quote from timbrx at 12:17 AM on April 16, 2009 :
General entropy- Systems generally run down. Energy runs out. Nothing is perpetual.


What types of systems?

Closed?

Open?

All of them?

If entropy increasesin one part of a cloased system, can it decrease in another?

Is a grown tree more or less 'ordered' than a seed?


I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.

It converts mass into energy.

Are you saying that only evos can invoke the "strawman" argument silencer?

I would say that only evos tend to employ the application of the charge of 'strawman' argument accurately.


You post the snowflake strawman to make our entropy argument look foolish when the snowflake is a change in molecular state and not a molecular change at all.


A snowflake is more ordered, i.e., has less entropy than the water vapor it formed from.  It is an apt and relevant example of the weakness in the application of this concept of "general entropy".

Toe nails - coverings for the ends of the toe. Would be useless if we were born with shoes on.


I'll bet you are serious...


Goose bumps- increases dead air space between skin and hair. (Insulation)


What causes goosebumps?

Why do humans get goosebumps when they are frightened or angry, not just cold?



Ok, I mentioned them. What makes you think these are vestigial?


Have you ever seen a cat get goosebumps?


How does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?

The energy is converted to heat.  Basic physics.

Is the earth a closed system/environment?  I think even creationists will agree that the earth gets a constant input of energy from the sun.  Therefore the earth is not a closed system.

But is the solar system a closed system?


I see no wall around it.

derwood
Interestingly, timbrx's 'explanation' seems to sort of undermine the usual fluff that creationists toss out about energy flow and entropy.  If he says that snowflakes can form and melt and ice can form and melt as the result of local "Environmental energy flux causes the change in state", then what is the problem?

The problem is that the water molecule is "seeking" a resting state. In a complete absence of outside influence it will find its lowest state and stay there.

Interesting.  So it is it's environment that dictates whether or not its entropy increases or decreases.  So, if the environment dictates that, say, only molecules of a certain chirality can form, and that same environment even catalyzes the polymerization of these molecules, is that an increase or a decrease in the system's general entropy?

If, by the use of energy, molecules can be pushed toward their 'restign state', is that OK?


What dictate's 'resting state', by the way?


It is ironic that water forming ice in the air increases the complexity of its shape. But the molecule itself does not increase in complexity.


And thus the creationist shifts the goalposts.

This happens whenever what they thought was a good point is shown to be trivial at best.  First, you are saying that the law of 'general entropy' dictates that all things tend to disorder, thus evolution is impossible (by extension). This is not the case; it is in fact trivial to show that entropy decreases all the time.  Now you want to talk about not just the 'general entropy' of a system, but the increasing 'complexity' of individual molecules.
What does molecular complexity have to do with the fact that the 'law of general entropy' is not what it was purported to be?

Does not a catalyzed reaction's products have a lower energy state that their reactants?


And the water molecule itself though prone to a change in state is actually a very stable molecule. An amino acid, on the other hand, is not very stable at all.


Do tell.

How unstable is it thermodynamically?
And what is the relevance of this?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:12 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:49 PM on April 16, 2009 :
So is gravity acting on the monitor while it is sitting still on my desk? Yes?

Yes
The gravitational effect on my monitor is demonstrated without movement.


How do you measure the force?

Yes, the effect would be far more obvious with applied motion but motion is not necessary to the demonstration.


Please explain how in a manner that would pass a high school physics test.

What would happen if you could turn off the gravity? Would it remain still?


If there were no other forces on it, the gravitational forces between the two as well as the Van der Waals forces would keep them together.

Or would it drift off? I guess that would depend on if it were in a vacuum.


Van der Waals forces and gravity would likely make them stick together.  The same way as clumps of the protostellar nebula.  Vacuum doesn't really enter into it. but it makes it easier to calculate.



-------
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: 9:15 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:06 AM on April 16, 2009 :
apoapsis
Thank you, you may now quit using this as an argument.

Thank you, It's actually not my favorite argument. I'm not even sure how we got into that on this thread anyway.


Lester brought it up and you supported it.  If you hadn't it would have dropped.



-------
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: 9:27 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:37 PM on March 29, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 11:28 AM on March 28, 2009 :
Going from one common creature to two similar kinds of creature doesn't seem so ridiculous if you color in the gaps between the two with time.


Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?






-------
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: 10:08 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Let me see if I follow the logic here.

1. an evo uses vestigial organs in an argument defending evolution.
Right. Some of them can only be explained if the organism acquired some function that gave the vestigial trait a lesser survival/reproductive advantage.
2. a creo doubts that "vestigial" is even a valid term unless it is supported by the TOE.
And i point that it's not a real problem. Not for the vestigial, and most certainly not for the ToE.
3. the creo makes a case that "vestigial" is a red herring or "strawman".
The red herring could be debatable. The strawman cannot. It's definitely not a strawman. It would be a strawman if i said that YOU defended vestigiality. And i never did.
4. the evos disagree.
Where? I'm not denying it. But still: where?
5. since the evos and the creos can't seem to grasp each others point, the evos mount a concerted
Agreement is not a concert.
attack on creos in general in order to discredit the assertion that "vestgial" is a strawman
Not remotely a strawman, because i never said that any of you supported vestigiality.
based on circular reasoning.
It did sound like circular reasoning in your words. I believe i showed you clearly (and repeatedly) the reason why it's not.
You can say it's just plain wrong. But there was no circular reasoning.
"Evolution explains vestigiality. Vestigiality explains Evolution." That could be circular.
But vestigiality doesn't explain anything.
Theories explain/predict, facts validate or show evidence in one way or the other.
6. the creo is supposed to give up the assertion because it is an "intellectually dishonest and glib fallacy".
What fallacy? The circularity?

Now please explain: how is it that the creos
are considered intolerant and closed minded and the evos are open minded and intellectually honest?
Perhaps we should all discuss what constitutes open mindedness. Because i don't know what it is.
I'm constantly making a probabilistic analysis of the data i receive. I'm a skeptic, i guess.
But there are things that i consider factual, for all practical purposes.

And yes, i'd like to think that i'm intellectually honest.


I would add that the sun is also decaying and as far as we know doesn't receive energy from anywhere.
It converts mass into energy.
In a sense you're both right.

If you treat mass/energy as a single thing, the Sun is decaying indeed and it doesn't receive energy/matter from anywhere.

If you treat mass and energy as separate things, the Sun is receiving energy from it's mass.

However, its mass is still decaying.

derwood
timbrx
How does the 2nd law apply to a closed system if the closed system can't loose energy?
The energy is converted to heat.  Basic physics.
Heat IS energy. I've referred to it before.

Edit:
Like this:
Not exactly.
"Energy gets dispersed" is the correct answer.

Heat is energy too.
What makes it a low form of energy is its dispersion. If heat is focused, it's useful.

We see it as the lowest form of energy simply because every other form of energy tends, ultimately, to get dispersed as heat. But dispersion is what really matters.


(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 10:36 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:26 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
sciborg

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the "intellectually dishonest and glib fallacies" stuff came from my post, I believe, and was not intended to follow, logically, from the strawman/circular stuff before it.  Instead, I was talking more generally about the use of vestigiality as an example of how creationists often approach debating the ToE.
 


Posts: 26 | Posted: 06:55 AM on April 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, heat is energy, I realize this.

But there is a cosmological statement re: the 'heat death' of the uiiverse, wherein all the 'useful' energy is ultimately converted to heat (another form of energy), which is generally not as useful as other forms of energy.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:07 AM on April 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To extract useful work, you must operate between two heat reservoirs at different temperatures, the higher the differential the more efficient the process.  If the universe were at uniform temperature and no fuel available to change the temperature, no work can be done.


-------
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: 08:32 AM on April 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:32 AM on April 17, 2009 :
To extract useful work, you must operate between two heat reservoirs at different temperatures, the higher the differential the more efficient the process.  If the universe were at uniform temperature and no fuel available to change the temperature, no work can be done.



Indeed.






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:12 AM on April 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 8:49 PM on April 16, 2009 :
What would happen if you could turn off the gravity? Would it remain still? Or would it drift off? I guess that would depend on if it were in a vacuum.


Things do stick together better in a hard vacuum.  Sometimes this results in a phenomena we call "vacuum welding", where two pieces of metal that are touching will fuse together.  Metal atoms are fairly mobile, in air they form a barrier due to the adsorption of molecules to the surface, this interferes with the molecular motion.  

In space, we have to be very careful with the choice of materials for surfaces that contact each other that will need to move after a period of time.



-------
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: 11:37 AM on April 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:49 PM on April 1, 2009 :
The strange thing is that we (creos) are always told how we don't understand how evolution works. I think rather we understand why it doesn't work. I'm not convinced that you evos understand your own theory.


What a condescending ass....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:46 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:08 PM on April 16, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 7:37 PM on March 29, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 11:28 AM on March 28, 2009 :
Going from one common creature to two similar kinds of creature doesn't seem so ridiculous if you color in the gaps between the two with time.


Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?







Still looking for an answer here too.


-------
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: 10:31 PM on June 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:31 PM on June 26, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 10:08 PM on April 16, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 7:37 PM on March 29, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 11:28 AM on March 28, 2009 :
Going from one common creature to two similar kinds of creature doesn't seem so ridiculous if you color in the gaps between the two with time.


Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?



Still looking for an answer here too.






-------
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: 11:54 PM on November 30, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:31 PM on June 26, 2009
Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?


What do you mean by "a problem"?
If you mean a problem of conception the answer is neither.
If you mean a problem of acceptance I'd have to say both.

I don't "know" how old the earth is. I believe the earth is young. I used to believe the earth was old but I've changed my mind. Of course there are problems with either view but I can accept young earth because it fits in with my desire to believe the Bible.
Believe me when I say that the first time I heard someone mention a young earth I was astonished at their ignorance. I was a young Christian than and I'd never heard any argument for a young earth. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard.
I can see why you think I'm ridiculous now. But I'm okay with that. The way I see it, it matters more to me that I believe the earth is young than it matters to you that you believe the earth is old. Your livelihood may be connected to the earth being old but my eternity is connected to the earth being young. If I'm wrong I'll never know. If your wrong, well... there's hell to pay.
Since evolution requires an immensity of time in order to be viable than the two are irrevocably joined.
Ultimately my "problem" is not with the concept but with the people. Political extremists on both sides use the dissemination of knowledge as a tool for control. (case in point:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html) If it endangers my personal liberty I'm willing to fight. Our current political situation is the child of evolutionary thought. I am opposed on the grounds that it impinges on my liberty and contradicts the intent of our nation's founders and of the constitution.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:56 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:56 PM on December 1, 2009 :
Of course there are problems with either view but I can accept young earth because it fits in with my desire to believe the Bible.


You are thus irrational and incompetent.

And your link about 'climategate' is a case in point.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:07 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Apoapsis
Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?
(...)If you mean a problem of acceptance I'd have to say both.
Both are MORE of a problem? :P
Just kidding.
Of course there are problems with either view
Claim.
Defend.
Start thread.
Of course.
but I can accept young earth because it fits in with my desire to believe the Bible.
That's ok, if you keep it far away from Science.
Science would deem that a contamination.
The way I see it, it matters more to me that I believe the earth is young than it matters to you that you believe the earth is old.
Exactly. Hence the bias.
Your livelihood may be connected to the earth being old but my eternity is connected to the earth being young.
Sounds like fear.
Anyway, our livelihood is real.
If I'm wrong I'll never know.
Are you suggesting that you'll never change your mind, no matter what you see?
If your wrong, well... there's hell to pay.
Pay for being wrong?
What a prickish system. Specially since the Bible says it's Yahweh himself who "hardened our hearts" so that we don't see, and that he could enlighten us if he wanted to.

Anyway, that's Pascal's wager. It's pretty weak. Pascal was ridiculed even in his own life for saying such a thing.

We can easily refute that:
What if the real God is another jealous prickish god different from Yahweh? What if he punishes those who adore other gods harder than he punishes atheists?
What if he leaves atheists alone, rewards those who believed in him, and punishes YOU?

Our current political situation is the child of evolutionary thought.
Even if that was true, it's irrelevant when you try to decide if Evolution is right or wrong.
I am opposed on the grounds that it impinges on my liberty and contradicts the intent of our nation's founders and of the constitution.
Like the strictest separation between religion and state?


(Edited by wisp 12/1/2009 at 2:18 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:12 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:56 PM on December 1, 2009 :
If your wrong, well... there's hell to pay.


So you are declaring that one cannot be a Christian without believing in a young earth?



-------
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: 2:46 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny, someone I used to work with (who is also a YEC) showed me that link to 'climategate' just this morning.  He, being the conspiracy theorist that he  is (yes, he's also an extreme right-wing GOP man), jumped all over that article as PROOF that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to hide the truth about global warming (that it is actually not happening).  Regarding the hacked emails - just like the media, he appears to be focusing on a mole-hill and ignoring the growing mountain.  

He also believes that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax!  LOL

Timbrx - you're not a conspiracy theorist, are you?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:48 PM on December 1, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
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.