The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: matthiashues on January 04, 2011, 10:03:13 AM
-
The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order and organization.
Evolution on the other hand is supposed to move onwards and upwards from particles to molecules to simple life and finally arrive at man whose brain is the most complex, organized material in the universe.
Evolution then involves belief in a massive increase in order and organization, requiring a willing suspension of belief in the second law by evolutionists.
Moreover, evolution is said to result from chance changes to natural selection, with no input of more information. Hence it can be seen that the theory of evolution is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics which categorically states that things naturally move from order to disorder.
The Big Bang theory of the start of the universe violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It then violates the second law of thermodynamics by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. Explosions do not produce order, but chaos. The proposed Big Bang would have been a destructive event of unimaginable proportions, which could not have produced an ordered universe.
-
Tell you what, you go measure the total energy of the universe, and if it's more than zero, plus or minus a few quantum fluctuations, I'll buy you a coke.
-
Oh my god I just got converted.
-
Oh hey, it's this "argument" again! I tell ya, it's like seeing an old friend now, every time somebody reposts this tripe.
-
A change in the entropy (S) of a system is the infinitesimal transfer of heat (Q) to a closed system driving a reversible process, divided by the equilibrium temperature (T) of the system.
The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. If you are continually adding energy (Sun), then it does not apply. If there was no sun or heat coming to the Earth, then yes, it would apply, given that everything would die out.
-
The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order and organization.
It's not a closed system. See the sun for more information.
Edit: It would seem Trekky beat me to this.
Moreover, evolution is said to result from chance changes to natural selection, with no input of more information. Hence it can be seen that the theory of evolution is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics which categorically states that things naturally move from order to disorder.
Natural selection is not random.
Natural selection is a filter for random mutations. It is not random.
It is analogous to turning over cards in a deck and separating them into piles of blacks and reds. The color is random, the filter is not.
The Big Bang theory of the start of the universe violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing.
You're assuming the net energy in the universe isn't zero. Quantum mechanics constantly shows us it is quite common for a 0 to 'split' into 1 and negative 1.
It then violates the second law of thermodynamics by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. Explosions do not produce order, but chaos. The proposed Big Bang would have been a destructive event of unimaginable proportions, which could not have produced an ordered universe.
Why would you expect the aftermath of an explosion to not stabilize while it disperses? ???
-
Natural selection is not random.
Natural selection is a filter for random mutations. It is not random.
It is analogous to turning over cards in a deck and separating them into piles of blacks and reds. The color is random, the filter is not.
I just came.
-
Also, the whole order vs entropic order thing.
-
CLOSED System.
Moron.
-
Also, the whole order vs entropic order thing.
-
The Big Bang theory of the start of the universe violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It then violates the second law of thermodynamics by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. Explosions do not produce order, but chaos. The proposed Big Bang would have been a destructive event of unimaginable proportions, which could not have produced an ordered universe.
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of something out of nothing. ::)
-
The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order and organization.
Thankfully we aren't in a closed system. The sun is bombarding us with energy.
As the rest of your post depended on your first sentence being right I think you are firmly proven wrong on every point.
-
Only thrice, I think.
-
God can violate any law he likes, but the Big Bang theory cannot.
This argument is a copy pasta from every evolution v creation board on the internet. You don't put the same effort into things anymore, Cass.
-
HEY GUYS, I THINK THERMODYNAMICS MIGHT ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS.
-
Is this guy really cass? What say you mods? Do the IP's match?
-
God can violate any law he likes, but the Big Bang theory cannot.
This argument is a copy pasta from every evolution v creation board on the internet. You don't put the same effort into things anymore, Cass.
1. Not a "copy and pasta" from the internet. If it is paste me the link i copied it from?.
2. Who is Cass?
3. What does God have anything to with with this thread? Why bring it up?
4. Big Bang has many flaws, science has moved on past that theory.
5. Give the exact quote where i said the earth is a "closed system". I never said the earth was a closed system.
The earth is neither open or closed it is beyond either.
We all know that sunlight heats the surface of Earth. For most practical purposes, however, Earth is a closed system. Why is that? The mass of the planet is essentially constant in time. Molecules in our atmosphere are attracted to Earth by gravity and do not migrate off into space. This is not true of the Moon or asteroids.
In broad terms, by contrast, Earth is definitely an open system. How can that be? Meteors strike the planet from time to time, bringing in matter from space. Indeed, it is probable that Earth’s substantial iron core (and therefore its magnetic field, and therefore life as we know it) and the Moon owe their existence to an impact between Earth and a massive asteroid about 4 billion years ago.
6. Trying reading what is typed instead of making assumptions!
-
5. Give the exact quote where i said the earth is a "closed system". I never said the earth was a closed system.
The earth is neither open or closed it is beyond either.
If you're not assuming the Earth is a closed system, then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply, and evolution cannot violate it.
-
The Big Bang theory does not theorize about the creation of the Universe. It theorizes about its expansion. There is no accepted theory about where stuff came from, only that is was once small and is now big. That is, in essence, the Big Bang theory.
And, Earth is most definitely an open system. It gains energy, which is enough. It doesn't need to gain mass to be an open system.
-
2. Who is Cass?
You or a practically identical poster.
3. What does God have anything to with with this thread? Why bring it up?
I'm already regretting asking this but what do you propose as an evolution alternative?
4. Big Bang has many flaws, science has moved on past that theory.
Not quite, it's been refined but the basic premise that all energy and mass in this universe originated from a small point hasn't really changed
5. Give the exact quote where i said the earth is a "closed system". I never said the earth was a closed system.
Exactly, the 2LTd only applies to closed systems.
The earth is neither open or closed it is beyond either.
Wrong. Also: Nonsensical.
We all know that sunlight heats the surface of Earth. For most practical purposes, however, Earth is a closed system. Why is that? The mass of the planet is essentially constant in time. Molecules in our atmosphere are attracted to Earth by gravity and do not migrate off into space. This is not true of the Moon or asteroids.
Energy is radiated into space all the time.
It's how this picture is possible:
(http://gmaps-utility-library.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/extmaptypecontrol/1.2/examples/blue_marble.jpg)
6. Trying reading what is typed instead of making assumptions!
Re-read. Twice. You're still wrong.
-
1. Not a "copy and pasta" from the internet. If it is paste me the link i copied it from?.
2. Who is Cass?
3. What does God have anything to with with this thread? Why bring it up?
4. Big Bang has many flaws, science has moved on past that theory.
5. Give the exact quote where i said the earth is a "closed system". I never said the earth was a closed system.
The earth is neither open or closed it is beyond either.
If you want to find another example of this argument, google 'evolution vs creationism'. There's at least one fundie on every forum that uses the Big bang/evolution and 2nd law argument. It's a tried and true troll argument, but it also sucks for plainly obvious reasons.
Given the amount of obvious problems with the argument, it isn't long before God is mentioned and the thread spirals into crap.
-
Evolution on the other hand is supposed to move onwards and upwards from particles to molecules to simple life and finally arrive at man whose brain is the most complex, organized material in the universe.
Since everyone else is covering the rest of your post I thought I'd start here....
Evolution on the other hand is supposed to move onwards and upwards from particles to molecules
WRONG!
Evolution only talks about the change in an organism.
Ambiogenesis is the creation of life from molecules.
man whose brain is the most complex, organized material in the universe.
Please cite this source. The human brain is not only a sloppy collection of neurons that has no organization we can detect BUT it's also not a material. Nerve cells aren't even a material.
Wanna know a really really organized material? Diamonds. Those carbon atoms are so perfectly organized you can see through them.
-
''Evolution only talks about the change in an organism.
Ambiogenesis is the creation of life from molecules''
====
Abiogenesis = the theory of organic evolution.
Like macroevolution this has never been observed though, so its not apart of science. Just another faith/speculation/assumption.
-
''Evolution only talks about the change in an organism.
Abiogenesis is the creation of life from molecules''
====
Abiogenesis = the theory of organic evolution.
Like macroevolution this has never been observed though, so its not apart of science. Just another faith/speculation/assumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
n natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth.
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis is the proposal that life emerged from non-life.
http://darwiniana.org/abiogenesis.htm
Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth.
http://creationwiki.org/Origin_of_life
Creationists believe that life was created by God, whereas the naturalists contend that organisms originated through purely natural processes from nonliving, inanimate material at some point in the very distant past. This theory is commonly known as abiogenesis (Greek a "without", bios "life", and genesis "beginning, origin").
Sorry for my misspelling but you really should learn the definition of a word BEFORE you respond to it.
-
6 different types of evolution
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: minor variations/adapations
First 5 have never been observed, tested or repeated.
Only number 6 *microevolution is science.
You can still believe in the first 5 as your religion/faith though, but they are not science.
-
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: minor variations/adapations
Only number 6 *microevolution is science.
You can still believe in the first 5 as your religion/faith though, but they are not science.
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]
The reason why only "micro-evolution" is accepted by Creationists is that they just adjust the bar to suit their needs.
Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.
And I point you out to the humble skink (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/)
Of course you'll just move the bar a little bit again won't you.
Berny
Thinks Macro and Micro terms should be banned from evolutionary debates.
-
6 different types of evolution
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bangâ€
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved†from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: minor variations/adapations
First 5 have never been observed, tested or repeated.
Only number 6 *microevolution is science.
You can still believe in the first 5 as your religion/faith though, but they are not science.
I swear to god, you're stealing from Kent Hovind.
Okay, here we go:
1. Cosmic evolution: No one has ever called what you're describing this. There is no set theory for the creation of the universe.
2. Chemical evolution: Happens all the time in the sun. It's called nuclear fusion. Hydrogen being converted to helium. Look at the sun sometime.
3. Stellar evolution: What, like a nebula? A stellar nursery where stars are forming?
4. Organic evolution: Abiogenesis, in other words. And there are several theories, but the fact is if we concede that supernatural is not science, then life had to come from somewhere.
5. Macroevolution: See fruit flies.
6. Microevolution
Five and six are under the same category of biological evolution, which is what we are discussing and run from the same process. Now please, keep on topic and stop bringing up totally separate processes that also have the word "evolution" in them.
-
6 different types of evolution
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: minor variations/adapations
First 5 have never been observed, tested or repeated.
Only number 6 *microevolution is science.
You can still believe in the first 5 as your religion/faith though, but they are not science.
Cass, you just misdefined a word and now you are going to claim you are an expert on what is science? This is sad.
-
The chemical evolution one was pretty damn funny. It's like he doesn't look stuff up or something. Oh wait...
(http://www.pakalertpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nuclear-fusion.jpg)
-
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
The Big Bang Theory does NOT claim that everything came from NOTHING. Creationism, does though. ;)
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/02/article-1005361-00C3FFBE00000578-7_468x328.jpg)
That thread seemed like something very different.
Did you like it?
No.
Then it wasn't different.
ohhohohoho!
-
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04/02/article-1005361-00C3FFBE00000578-7_468x328.jpg)
That thread seemed like something very different.
Did you like it?
No.
Then it wasn't different.
ohhohohoho!
Your job is to now to solely these posts.
-
What does this have to do with Batman?
-
There's at least one fundie on every forum that uses the Big bang/evolution and 2nd law argument.
Yep - and it's usually the same guy. Cassiterides.
-
What does this have to do with Batman?
Exactly. Despite your low post count you can at least stay on topic. This noob is going places.
-
What does this have to do with Batman?
You'll fit right in, good man.
-
Why isn't Cass banned yet? All he does it makes alts to make threads, and then he replies to them.
He has like 4 sockpuppet accounts here.
Also, this is ridiculous:
It then violates the second law of thermodynamics by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. Explosions do not produce order, but chaos. The proposed Big Bang would have been a destructive event of unimaginable proportions, which could not have produced an ordered universe.
In case nobody knows, an expenditure of energy is always required to create order. Also, these fundies do not even understand how entropy works. They think, "It is either order, or chaos." when it really isn't. Entropy depends solely on the net change of the Universe.
Black holes seemingly order the universe since they pull matter into clumps, and even large galaxies, but at the same time, the blackhole creates such an increase of gravitational disorder, that there is still a net gain in the equation.
tl;dr A seemingly ordered universe is an entropic one.
-
Also, not a closed system.
-
1. Not a "copy and pasta" from the internet. If it is paste me the link i copied it from?.
2. Who is Cass?
3. What does God have anything to with with this thread? Why bring it up?
4. Big Bang has many flaws, science has moved on past that theory.
5. Give the exact quote where i said the earth is a "closed system". I never said the earth was a closed system.
The earth is neither open or closed it is beyond either.
If you want to find another example of this argument, google 'evolution vs creationism'. There's at least one fundie on every forum that uses the Big bang/evolution and 2nd law argument. It's a tried and true troll argument, but it also sucks for plainly obvious reasons.
Given the amount of obvious problems with the argument, it isn't long before God is mentioned and the thread spirals into crap.
Given that this forum is filled with tried and true troll arguments, I wouldn't give him to much hell
-
''Evolution only talks about the change in an organism.
Ambiogenesis is the creation of life from molecules''
====
Abiogenesis = the theory of organic evolution.
Like macroevolution this has never been observed though, so its not apart of science. Just another faith/speculation/assumption.
as pongo has pointed out to me,
google four winged fruit flies.
also new species of bacteria.
Also dogs, as they seem to be on their way to new subspecies at the very least
And if human's didn't evolve, why are there no millions year old human fossils or evidence of uber old civilization?
how come we can't make new planets? after all, we'd have been a race for billions of years
-
''Evolution only talks about the change in an organism.
Ambiogenesis is the creation of life from molecules''
====
Abiogenesis = the theory of organic evolution.
Like macroevolution this has never been observed though, so its not apart of science. Just another faith/speculation/assumption.
as pongo has pointed out to me,
google four winged fruit flies.
also new species of bacteria.
Also dogs, as they seem to be on their way to new subspecies at the very least
And if human's didn't evolve, why are there no millions year old human fossils or evidence of uber old civilization?
how come we can't make new planets? after all, we'd have been a race for billions of years
The earth is not billions of years old. it is 6000 years old give or take a couple hundereds years as infered by the bible. duh.
-
''Evolution only talks about the change in an organism.
Ambiogenesis is the creation of life from molecules''
====
Abiogenesis = the theory of organic evolution.
Like macroevolution this has never been observed though, so its not apart of science. Just another faith/speculation/assumption.
as pongo has pointed out to me,
google four winged fruit flies.
also new species of bacteria.
Also dogs, as they seem to be on their way to new subspecies at the very least
And if human's didn't evolve, why are there no millions year old human fossils or evidence of uber old civilization?
how come we can't make new planets? after all, we'd have been a race for billions of years
The earth is not billions of years old. it is 6000 years old give or take a couple hundereds years as infered by the bible. duh.
imma interpret that as sarcasm
but:
6 different types of evolution
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: minor variations/adapations
First 5 have never been observed, tested or repeated.
Only number 6 *microevolution is science.
You can still believe in the first 5 as your religion/faith though, but they are not science.
1st one: why do you think we are doing the LHC?
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/making-something-nothing-theory-says-matter-can-be-conjured-vacuum
Big bang is not nothing (as mentioned many times) but from a singularity
Chemical evolution: nuclear fusion up to iron, supernovas past that. We also have made elements before (didn’t we make plutonium and beyond?)
Stellar evolution: observed star formations with hubble
http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/images/EGGs.html
http://www.astro.ex.ac.uk/people/mbate/Research/97-09.html
organic evolution: we got close, got a virus
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0311/90.htm
coat that with some fat and other stuff and you can get a cell theoretically also we can make bacteria with custom dna
macro-evolution: we have observed species change
look at this page, may answer questions
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
also, in the theory of evolution, there is no difference between macro and micro, as there is no observed effect that divides them, like saying if I wait for a minute or wait of an hour, I am still waiting, and eventually, by waiting minutes, I will wait an hour