Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Be specific.
"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."
You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.
More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.
Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.
I would argue that is not science.
Idiocythe energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.
I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?
What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?
the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.
Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.
So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?
You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.
No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.
The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
YWC's mind is an "Isolated system". Nothing that matters can freely pass between his mind and reality and it is a complete waste of energy even trying.
The way science defines systems are there any biological closed systems ?
How do you explain decay in nature if not by entropy ?
Your "irreducible obtuseness" stands in the way of your ever being capable of learning. Instead you pose questions where you are already biased with creationist disinformation.
The way science defines systems are there any biological closed systems ?
How do you explain decay in nature if not by entropy ?
Your "irreducible obtuseness" stands in the way of your ever being capable of learning. Instead you pose questions where you are already biased with creationist disinformation.
Let's try this on for size the 2nd law and special relativity are closely related, if the 2nd law falls so does special relativity. The 2nd law applies to all systems.
Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"The way science defines systems are there any biological closed systems ?
How do you explain decay in nature if not by entropy ?
Your "irreducible obtuseness" stands in the way of your ever being capable of learning. Instead you pose questions where you are already biased with creationist disinformation.
Let's try this on for size the 2nd law and special relativity are closely related, if the 2nd law falls so does special relativity. The 2nd law applies to all systems.
the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.
Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.
So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?
You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.
No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.
The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
Creationists who cite the entropy principle against the evolutionary philosophy are, time and again, dismissed as either ignorant of thermodynamics or dishonest in their use of the second law.
Yeah, that pretty much covers it.
In an open system (such as the earth receiving an influx of heat energy from the sun), the entropy always tends to increase
Which doesn't stop cells, or complex organisms, from getting more complex or evolving.
How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?Your comment is predictable.
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?Your comment is predictable.
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
Befuddled? I think you have made yourself the poster child for befuddled.How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?Your comment is predictable.
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *
Befuddled not me. You didn't read this.
"Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability"
"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."
thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange
Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"Your "irreducible obtuseness" stands in the way of your ever being capable of learning. Instead you pose questions where you are already biased with creationist disinformation.
Let's try this on for size the 2nd law and special relativity are closely related, if the 2nd law falls so does special relativity. The 2nd law applies to all systems.
Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"Let's try this on for size the 2nd law and special relativity are closely related, if the 2nd law falls so does special relativity. The 2nd law applies to all systems.
Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.
Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"Let's try this on for size the 2nd law and special relativity are closely related, if the 2nd law falls so does special relativity. The 2nd law applies to all systems.
Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.
those are not evidence of design or a designer...
Considering the existence of extremophiles living near hot smoker vents on the ocean floors that have no connection to the Sun based food chain, yeah I can see life without the Sun.
The moon is nice, but life can do just fine without it.
Atmosphere might be a little harder to get around, but Europa effectively has no atmosphere and life may be abundant beneath the ice.
Oxygen is the only one of those things that life as we know it has to have, but then again life arose on a primordial Earth that had an oxygen poor atmosphere.
Blood, bones, organs are all absent in single celled organisms and they do just fine without them.
Food. Define food. Plants use sunlight as food.
Water. Life as we know it needs water (although viruses don't but the jury is still out on whether or not a virus is technically a lifeform). But why wouldn't there be any water? Other than H2 and O2, H2O is the most abundant compound in the universe, largely because of the molecular physics involved. The only way to not have water is to change the laws of physics and at that point this whole exercise is nothing more than mental masturbation.
Nonsense!
What would happen if the Sun disappeared? | Spaceanswers.com
What would we do without the moon? | ScienceNordic
Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"
Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.
Yeah, let's just look the other way and claim irrelevant or nonsense even though the problem is acknowledge by scientists.
The misinformation is to assume the 2nd law is contradicted by any system. What's really funny is ,you are surrounded by evidence supporting the law of entropy and you can see the evidence in the heavens as well ,and yet,you try to wiggle around it like it doesn't exist.
Well, that was pointless.1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.
Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)
But let that not trouble the text book writers.
Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.
Which journals is Jesus producing peer-reviewed papers in?
First you tell me if it would make a difference to you or not?
None who have replied to me really care enough to know the truth. Or they are afraid of it.
Because if they cared, they would have done the easy to access homework long ago.
The Shroud of Turin is a real life miracle. And science is what says it is so.
what an odd thing for you to say everything you've ever posted is conjecture...fucking specious too ,not to mention based on a false premise ..what the fuck to you mean by early life..?Idiocy
I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?
What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? scientifically invalid site.Idiocy
I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?
What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?
the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.
Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.
So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?
You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.
No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.
The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
no need we've been over this a billion times you were full of shit then and nothing changed ...origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.
Likewise.
Be specific.
