Name-caller, the age of the earth is but one contradiction to your various, invented conspiracy theories.
Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
- Thread starter Youwerecreated
- Start date
Name-caller, the age of the earth is but one contradiction to your various, invented conspiracy theories.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Do you believe you were wrong about the 2nd Law?
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
- Thread starter
- #3,463
No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
- Thread starter
- #3,464
No not by your premise concerning the earth ,this planet did not have life for 2 billion years I don't see order being produced when the universe was experiencing an increase in disorder for that long. The universe was exp an increase in disorder for to long concerning your theory.
Then to think all of a sudden non life could produce life without being directed a bit much for me to accept.
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
- Thread starter
- #3,465
Definitely not scientific views based on empirical evidence.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
You still believe that things can't get more complex on Earth, because of the 2nd Law?
That was your original claim.
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
- Thread starter
- #3,467
Yes the 2nd law was in play for to long before life.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Once life was here, you claimed the 2nd Law prevents increased complexity.
Still sticking by your second misinterpretation of the 2nd Law?
daws101
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #3,472
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
And of course, you know better.
It really is remarkable how you are forced to invent conspiracy theories as the means to support your extremist ideology or you launch into fits of abject denial.
There are many different dating methods employed by science. They have been presented to you on more than a couple of occasions. These methods are widely accepted by the relevant science community as reliable and accurate given geologic timescales.
Using the phrase "relevant science community" obviously excludes ID'iot creationists.
It should be a simple matter for ID'iot creationists to refute those atheistic evilutionist in connection with dating methods. Why don't the ID'iots provide their research papers for peer review? They can simultaneously refute the evilutionist nonsense of a 4.5 billion year old planet while disproving the fosill record.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 840
- 130
The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions
Last edited:
itfitzme
Silver Member
It starts of immediately stupid.
"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"
Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.
We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.
LittleNipper
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2013
- 5,613
- 840
- 130
"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.
Last edited:
I am certain that one can find any opinion they want by sesrching personal blogs.
Here's a radical idea: email your blogger pal and ask him to submit his research documentation for peer review.
Just going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you don't have (and haven't had), a great deal of interaction with scientists or the science community.
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
- Thread starter
- #3,479
Explain weasel ?
Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
- Thread starter
- #3,480
Nope, it's just foolishness to think their dating methods are accurate when many times they have been shown to be unreliable and they are based off faulty assumptions.
If you want to know the faulty assumptions look them up yourself.
Similar threads
