Evolution or creation? (page 9)

funkyderek

Well if it makes me look ignorant, I'm in good company, as a lot of other doctors site the same contradiction.

Other doctors? Does that mean you're a doctor? Who are these other doctors who make such an elementary mistake? Are they doctors in a relevant field such as physics or biology?

Why don't you just enlighten us with some important points from your lovely link?

Would it be too much trouble for you to read it?

Anyway, here's a summary: Entropy must increase over time, but only within a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Entropy may decrease - and order may arise - locally, as long as overall entropy increases.

If the link I provided was too complicated, here's one describing a system in which entropy can be seen to decrease over time, and order spontaneously arises. What's more, the experiment is so simple you can even do it at home.

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/rockcandy.html

If you want to continue arguing, I suggest you do a little bit of research.

pomegranate

Other doctors? Does that mean you're a doctor?

Studying to be.

Who are these other doctors who make such an elementary mistake? Are they doctors in a relevant field such as physics or biology?

Talk about me not reading...Dr. Bergman and Dr. Yu I even quoted here. Are you really blind?

Pom said: Why don't you just enlighten us with some important points from your lovely link?

FD said: Would it be too much trouble for you to read it?

I have read it. I am unable to see where the explaination of the cell is. Show me.

Anyway, here's a summary: Entropy must increase over time, but only within a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Entropy may decrease - and order may arise - locally, as long as overall entropy increases.

There earth is a closed system. It has a gaseous membrane, closing it.

If you want to further deabte, please make sure you can identify Dr. as doctor when I quote them for you.

JanH

Pome,

Dr. Jerry Bergman, a brilliant scientists

Thanks for the laugh. Wondered why he publishes his 'scientific' work in the ICR's little misquotation-filled pamphlet Impact instead of Nature? In the conspiracy theories of Jerry Bergman (insert alphabet soup here) it is of course a massive atheistic conspiracy that causes his brilliant work to be rejected by scientific journals, and him not getting any serious scientific position. Those who have read some of his tripe, however, tend to come to another conclusion.

That said, it is well known that there does exist good scientists who are still devoutly religious. They do, as one of them put it, check out their brains at the church door. When some very few of them reject evolution, they do it for religious reasons, not scientific.

And that is precisely why science is not about what Dr X or Professor Y said, but about the actual evidence presented. A Nobel laureate must like all other scientists substantiate his claims with facts and data. If a person makes a stupic claim, it is still stupid even if he has flouts an alphabet soup behind his name. And this is where creationism sorely lack any founding in fact whatsoever. It is precisely because evidence shows without a shade of reasonable doubt that evolution is a fact, that it is near-universally accepted in science.

And that is of course why you'd rather eat poison than actually dealing with the evidence. You have been provided with lots of references, which you have ignored. When you flatly state, as you did above, about mutations and gene recombination -- and even childbirth (!) -- that "NONE of it has been proven in a lab", anyone can see you're about as far out to lunch as you can get.

- Jan

Blogging at Secular Blasphemy

JanH

Hereby nominating Pome for most ignorant comment of the day:

There earth is a closed system.

I suspect your PhD may be some years off, Pome

- Jan

Blogging at Secular Blasphemy

Edited by - JanH on 11 October 2002 8:29:35

pomegranate

The debate rages even at the top of the sciences...I noticed you by-passed the neurosurgeon Dr. Yu.

It really all comes down to where one puts their faith.

You choose to put your faith in the Periodic Table (creation), I choose to put my faith in the One who made the Periodic Table (Creator).

Some people will never change. Like me and you.

I'd still welcome and entertain an explaination of celluar evolution. That's where it starts.

Which came first the DNA or the cell?

pomegranate

So I disagree with the commonly accepted theoretical model of a closed system.

I plan on writing a paper on it...

funkyderek

Talk about me not reading...Dr. Bergman and Dr. Yu I even quoted here. Are you really blind?

No, I'm not blind. Neither of the doctors quoted say anything to support your claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That's what I posted about.

I have read it. I am unable to see where the explaination of the cell is. Show me.

It's not there. It's a page about thermodynamics and the misconception that the Second Law is somehow violated by evolution. I wasn't talking about cells at all. One step at a time.

There earth is a closed system. It has a gaseous membrane, closing it.

So no energy goes in or out? Do you understand what I mean by a closed system? I mean, we're discussing energy transfer. Do you have any knowledge of this subject at all? You expect people to either provide you with a complete account of every detail of cellular evolution, when you don't even understand the most basic science. But you've apparently decided to believe what you already believe, regardless of what the facts are. Good look with your PhD.!

LucidSky

Pom, do you believe that God could create through evolutionary processes if He so decided?

freeman

Wow now we have jumped from evolution to physics, cool!

Pomegranate you said:

So I disagree with the commonly accepted theoretical model of a closed system. I plan on writing a paper on it.

I have some friends, my former workmates, who are still working at NASAs Space Physics Analysis Lab, and I was wondering if it would be OK with you if I forwarded your paper to some of them for their enlightenment.

I myself havent worked at in lab in several years so these new corrections that you will provide wont affect me too much, but these poor ignorant souls at the lab need to be corrected. You see for them, the proper understanding of physics, well, thats their bread and butter so they really need to know these new facts.

Do let us know when your paper is ready and I will be sure to pass it on.

Thanks

Freeman (waiting to be reeducated on thermodynamics)

gumby

Pom;

As I have asked FROM THE BEGINNING of this debate, let's start at the beginning and postulate YOUR hypothesis, theory or proof on how the cell came to be. Each and every time it has been side stepped. Without this basic beginning, which complexity is unchallenged by either camp, EVOLUTIONISTS have no explaination for ANY of the cells complex existence.

Being SIDESTEPPED. Some things that are sidestepped are things there have been no facts or answers, to prove contrary. Yours Pom is ...How did God begin.....using your own argument....life from life. I realize you believe this from a material point of veiw and not a spiritual one. In other words.....you cannot apply this rule to God. This belief is taken on faith alone. Still there is however no PROOF of this claim.....well...

.....it is the same with the argument against Evolutionist who cannot prove a particular point. There's is based on faith that their argument is valid.....that being ....how did the FIRST cell begin?

What STARTED life? Is there PROOF Evolutionist have on this on how it began...............

Evolution or creation?

Share this