Now I'm scared No Christian Left Behind
#31
Posted 24 November 2004 - 04:05 AM
So, that is where he must have got his notion that evolution is no longer "worthy theory". Personally I have never forced myself to watch that particular film, so that encounts for my lack of enlightment in that point.
The above was plain sarcasm.
#32
Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:11 AM
Evolution is not an empirical science. You can't run experiments or derive formulae. It's more of a forensic science. You try find the cause by the effects, there is very little to work with.
Darwinism was killed with the lack of fossil evidence. To be precise, none at all. Even Darwin himself was aware of this. He wrote in his book (which I own)
The situation is even worse today for Darwinism. No scientist, who values credibility, believes in his theory. They see him as a forefather, nothing more. There has been literally 100's of new theories since his passing. And none of them are even close to being accurate. Most of them are complete contradictions of one another. So why teach a false model? They do it to instill the idea. The sad thing is all my friends were bought back in grade 9 science. They think darwinsim is how we came to be. They could not tell you one thing about evolution or any of it's theroms. All they know is 'natural selection' which does not support evolution at all, and that man was once a monkey. Most evolutionists have given up the monkey thing. They're trying to find a method of explaining how cells change (gradually, fast, etc..) Which by the ways is astronomically more difficult.
A single cell is just too complex, and Highschool education does not address this. We know now that 1 cell is extremely complicated. More complicated than an entire ford manufacturing plant. Back in Darwin's day, people thought that single cells were just mere blobs of jelly. They did not know how complicated they were. When scientists realized that you'd have to go to the chemical and biological level to find anything.
There are many types of evolutionary theories. Biological, Chemical, and Cosmic (don't want to get into all of them right now)
---- side note
The science that I enjoy that can shed light on creation is Thermodynamics, something you do learn in Highschool, at very elmentry level but the main laws are still taught.
The laws of thermodynamics are the most well established laws out there. It's like Newtons law of motion. Thermodynamics is a tricky subject and what I’m about to say is widely adopted and scrutinized by many people.
Law 1)
The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Or in other words, it remains constant. For instance. If you put in 100 units of energy into your car then the most work that can be outputted by your engine is 100 units. Energy is constant. (When you buy gas for your car about half of the money you spend actually goes into moving the car. The rest is lost to heat by means of friction and mechanical work. At best you break even (100 in =100 out) but in reality you always take a loss.)
Law 2)
A system operating in contact with a thermal reservoir cannot produce positive work in its surroundings. Or in other words you can't break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder- entropy always increases). So once you get heat, that's the end of the road.
Law 3)
You can't not have a process going on. The only time energy stops is when a process stops, or in other words, Absolute Zero is reached. Which of course is not possible. We've come close, but nobody will ever stop a process completely.
From the above I concluded that
Energy can only change states, it can't be created or destroyed. Eventually, the final state of all energy is heat. So if all the energy in the universe is constant, and of course it's being continuously used (no none movement of particles) then one day all the usable energy will be turned to heat. Hence the chaos theory of the universe. One day all energy will be in it's final state (heat) therefore unuseable and unhabitable. Therefore the universe is not infinite and not self sufficient. It's a ticking time bomb.
This does not really tackle evolution. But the way I see it is if the universe has an ending, then it must of had a begining. Evolutionist, the none theistic kind (the real kind) believe that the universe is eternal, more or less.
Thermodynamics is often called the Pessimists science. You can't win, you can only break even, and you can never get out of the game.
#33
Posted 24 November 2004 - 09:11 AM
And actually it would change the whole perception of "Let there be light" wouldn't it. That's kinda cool.
#34
Posted 24 November 2004 - 04:03 PM
I appreciate you taking interest in such things as thermodynamics. I fact, I majored in thermodynamics and heat transfer. And you know what? I taught me mostly humility towards science, because it was revealed to me how much I don’t know. I would never even dareddescribe thermodynamics and its connection to theory of evolution in a few sentences. I also know some people who read a couple of essays on the subject claim to be experts and voice their opinion quite freely.
I do not want to sound patronising, but your theories look like they have been taken from a Reader’s Digest – no, that DOES sound patronising, so, I’ll try again. Your theories sound like those of early Greek philosophers, who in turn thought that „the prime element” of nature was in turn, water (Tales), air (Anaxymenes), fire (Heraclitus) etc. The „heat” you speak about sound just like those early Greek ideas of elements. Are you sure you properly understand the idea of „heat” – heat is just energy transferred from body of another as a result of temperature differences. And may I remind you that temperature is just a measure of kinetic energy of molecules of a body? So „heat” cannot be the final state of energy. You mix things – you properly recapitulated laws of thermodynamics, but are you sure you understand correctly basic definitions?
I do not really want to go into discussion about science. I am not an expert of theory of evolution either. But it just seems to me that evolution is like democracy, which is by no means an ideal system, but yet so far people have been unable to come up with something better.
#36
Posted 24 November 2004 - 07:33 PM
But if Creationism were the norm and I attempted to argue it I'd simply be burnt for a heretic.
Quote
#37
Posted 24 November 2004 - 08:18 PM
Yes I realize heat is energy transfer. I'm not a fucking lab rat, I'm in engineering. I don't pretend to know it all. "You mix things" I don't mix things, I used the term loosely. When we talk about energy loss, it's always heat. I think you damn well know what I was talking about, you're just being smug.
"So „heat” cannot be the final state of energy."
Well that's what we call the final state.
It was just a side note I chimmed in. The main topic was darwinism is dead. That is it. And I even stated that thermdynamic laws do not prove evolution wrong.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 24 November 2004 - 08:21 PM
#38
Posted 24 November 2004 - 08:58 PM
I took 2 courses in the subject and just found it interesting. But just to clairfy.
All energy is heading towards a more random state. Heat is random. I've heard my teachers say that heat is the final state. Most of my study was concerened with closed systems, turbines, refrigeration, and heat transer between solid bodies.
#39
Posted 25 November 2004 - 01:30 AM
Jordan, I am sorry buddy but you do mix things. Thermodynamics and heat transfer are not the same things. If you do an engineering course then guys who teach you how to calculate thermal cycles for turbines, Diesel engines and refrigerators do it from engineering point of view and in order to make students understand they simplify things (I know this because at one point of my university career I also attended an engineering course).
I still do not understand what your teachers mean by saying “heat is the final state of energy”???? Perhaps they mean increase of enthalpy? Still, to call this “heat” is a gross simplification.
But really, you are right and we sidetrack, so I won't touch the subject ny more.
#40
Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:19 AM
I know it was a side issue, but I thougt by "heat is the final state of energy" he meant that all other energy types(mechanic, sound, electrical, potential etc)would be zero, and everything would be at a constant temperature, dependent on the amount of heat energy(which is all the energy)in the universe. This being the heat death of the universe.
And on the point of America's bombing, how did you forget Japan? We've seen two atomic explosions on civilians, and guess who launched them?
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#41
Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:36 AM
Thermodynamics and heat transfer are not the same things
They were taught in the same course. I'm looking at my text right now. I see heat transfer all of the chapter index page.
This book is very comprehesive. Heat transfer, gas mixtures, chemical reactions, refirg, power cycles.
So you're saying that I did not learn real thermodynamics? But practical wishy washy stuff. Regardless, I still found it really hard and interesting. I guess I don't really need to know the ' absolute truth' about this topic since chances are I'll never need it in the field.
types(mechanic, sound, electrical, potential etc)would be zero
Did I say that? I'm not sure if that could happen. I thought all energy in the universe would reach the highest point of disorder, so it couldn't be at abs zero. I don't know anymore.
Perhaps they mean increase of enthalpy
Enthalpy is heat. That is what I was told! Holly shit, I know nothing.
This post has been edited by Jordan: 25 November 2004 - 02:43 AM
#42
Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:42 AM
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#43
Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:43 PM
I don't care about Entropy, and Thermodynamics, and the age of the Universe. This is all Red Herring. Yes, the Universe had a beginning, yes, the universe will have an end. we're actually talking about stuff that happened since the one and before the other, so both those extremes are irrelevant.
Really all we have here is a planet dotted with species of similar physiologies and no notion of their common origin. One camp says "they look alike, so they must be related," and the other says "they look alike, therefore Jesus Christ died for our sins." I lean toward the easier answer, of course, because I am lazy. Also, because there's lots of study and genetic background. The similarities, incidentally, on the genetic level are even more convincing than the obvious common bone structures.
And all this they say about fossils: a ) this science isn't that old; b ) fossils are really uncommon and hard to make; and c ) we probably wouldn't recognize a "missing link" if we found one. Besides, isn't it interesting enough that we have Bonobos and chimpanzees? Gibbons and orangutans? Zebras and horses, donkeys, giraffes, and deer? There has to be a reason for it, and if it's "Intelligent Design," I mean if that's really the REASON, then shouldn't we at least TRY to prove it?
#44
Posted 25 November 2004 - 05:29 PM
Bravo. You summed up the argument perfectly and that was a really funny way of doing so.
Quote