[Jefferson]

RSF: The Energy Order of the Universe

This is the show from Friday January 8th, 2010.

BEST QUOTES OF THE SHOW:

Ever since the discovery of the 2nd law [of thermodynamics] physics has been faced with the question of why the universe began in a low entopy [ie."everything is organized"] state.

If disorder results only from order, then what is the initial source of the order of the energy of the universe?

Since energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally and every natural or spontaneous process tends to disorder, then the origen of order cannot be natural but it must be supernatural.

SUMMARY:

* Real Science Friday on the Energy Order of the Universe: Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss a fascinating article in the Fall 2009 Creation Research Society Quarterly by James Powell on the energy burned by stars throughout the universe. See also Bob Enyart's debate on Entropy and Evolution!

* Come Out to Your Local March for Life: Whatever state you live in, please come to the March for Life. If you're in Colorado, then you are cordially invited to Colorado's 2010 March for Life on the steps of the Capitol downtown at noon on Friday, January 22, 2010! Come on out. We'll have a FABULOUS TIME of fellowship!

* The Personhood Movement Has Exploded Into 40 States! So please help the state personhood efforts get the signatures they need to re-criminalize abortion! If you live in:

Colorado: could you help circulate the Personhood Colorado & Colorado RTL 2010 petition? If so, just click or call 303-753-9394.
California: please visit the CA Human Life Amendment site to get a petition and start collecting signature for the Lord and for the innocent child!
Any Other State: If you live in any other state, can you help to advance personhood via the 2010 ballot or in one of three different ways?

We all need your help!

Today's Resource: Please consider emailing this helpful description of Focus on the Strategy II to another Christian who may be an asset in the personhood movement after viewing this groundbreaking DVD!

[Nick M]

This was a good show.

[Alate_One]

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

Your blathering does no good if you cannot provide the evidence against this position. Show us how entropy is not a problem for evolution or shut up and go away.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

No. Physics says high pressure will push low pressure. Makes perfect sense that a wing takes flight. Try again. Get saved.

[Nick M]

I also like how he pointed out laws are discovered, not made. Which is why people often rebel against man made laws that are unjust.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Your blathering does no good if you cannot provide the evidence against this position. Show us how entropy is not a problem for evolution or shut up and go away.

No, its a giant distraction. Evolution is well demonstrated, by DNA,fossils, biogeography etc. A slightly better analogy would be the statement that bumblebees cannot fly via the known laws of physics, yet they fly circles around us.

You're arguing the theoretical when there's plain and obvious evidence to confront.

[PlastikBuddha]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

No, its a giant distraction. Evolution is well demonstrated, by DNA,fossils, biogeography etc. A slightly better analogy would be the statement that bumblebees cannot fly via the known laws of physics, yet they fly circles around us.

You're arguing the theoretical when there's plain and obvious evidence to confront.

But it sounds good. It's catchy, easy to remember, and seems convincing to people who don't understand the actual science involved. Isn't that what really important to creationists?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

No, its a giant distraction. Evolution is well demonstrated, by DNA,fossils, biogeography etc. A slightly better analogy would be the statement that bumblebees cannot fly via the known laws of physics, yet they fly circles around us.

You're arguing the theoretical when there's plain and obvious evidence to confront.

Coward.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Coward.

I'm the coward? Your lot are the ones hiding behind theoretical ideas while refusing to acknowledge any actual *data* that contradicts your point of view (which is of course, all of it).

Want to falsify evolution? Here's how.

You need to find a fossil of something before it could have possibly evolved.

For example . . .

Show us a sea otter, whale, walrus, penguin, even a bony fish in the Cambrian - The Burgess Shale formation.

All of this fossilized seabed and not ONE FISH! Can you imagine fossils forming underwater today with other creatures but no fish?

Find us a bird or any sort of modern placental mammal in the permian era, living alongside gorgonops or dimetrodon (and no neither of them are dinosaurs).

Find us a shorebird, muskrat, raccoon or other modern vertebrate shoreline animal living alongside tiktaalik and other early tetrapods which also lived along the shoreline.

Betting you won't show us anything.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

I'm the coward? Your lot are the ones hiding behind theoretical ideas while refusing to acknowledge any actual *data* that contradicts your point of view (which is of course, all of it).

You're the one claiming the data proves this theory wrong and then refusing to post any of that data.

Want to falsify evolution? Here's how.

You need to find a fossil of something before it could have possibly evolved.

For example . . .

Show us a sea otter, whale, walrus, penguin, even a bony fish in the Cambrian - The Burgess Shale formation.

All of this fossilized seabed and not ONE FISH! Can you imagine fossils forming underwater today with other creatures but no fish?

Find us a bird or any sort of modern placental mammal in the permian era, living alongside gorgonops or dimetrodon (and no neither of them are dinosaurs).

Find us a shorebird, muskrat, raccoon or other modern vertebrate shoreline animal living alongside tiktaalik and other early tetrapods which also lived along the shoreline.

Betting you won't show us anything.

Prove those periods actually existed first.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

You're the one claiming the data proves this theory wrong and then refusing to post any of that data.

Huh? If I posted ALL of the data supporting evolution, well it would take up the entire forum. How about you get out a textbook on evolution and actually read it.

Prove those periods actually existed first.

I mentioned ONE period. However what I asked for has nothing to do with accepting periods or not. I asked for organisms being found together, in the SAME rock layers. If everything lived at the same time, there should be absolutely no difficulty in finding a deer, bird or snake skull alongside tiktaalik, or ichthyostega, or dimetrodon or any of the others.

[chrysostom]

entropy is only a problem for the atheist

evolution is only a problem for those who only have the Bible

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

I'm the coward? Your lot are the ones hiding behind theoretical ideas while refusing to acknowledge any actual *data* that contradicts your point of view (which is of course, all of it).

Want to falsify evolution? Here's how.

You need to find a fossil of something before it could have possibly evolved.

For example . . .

Show us a sea otter, whale, walrus, penguin, even a bony fish in the Cambrian - The Burgess Shale formation.

All of this fossilized seabed and not ONE FISH! Can you imagine fossils forming underwater today with other creatures but no fish?

Find us a bird or any sort of modern placental mammal in the permian era, living alongside gorgonops or dimetrodon (and no neither of them are dinosaurs).

Find us a shorebird, muskrat, raccoon or other modern vertebrate shoreline animal living alongside tiktaalik and other early tetrapods which also lived along the shoreline.

Betting you won't show us anything.

There are far easier ways to falsify evolution than trying to find something that most likely cannot be found.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

There are far easier ways to falsify evolution than trying to find something that most likely cannot be found.

But it should be so easy if everything lived at the same time! You're telling me you can't find ONE example of a fossil that's alongside of things it shouldn't be?

If you CAN'T find it, and we see the pattern evolution predicts over and over again, then we have very strong evidence for evolution.

Another way, show that the DNA of humans is closer to something, anything over apes. Show any evolutionarily impossible relationship via DNA.

Betting you'll say that's impossible too.