Right Divider
Body part
Seems like the answer is no.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
Hey Tweedle Dee and Tweetle Dum, ask Derf. I will accept his assessment of how well I understand the term.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I used to
Derf
Well-known member
Tweedle Derf doesn’t think you understand entropy very well.
Entropy is the tendency toward lower states of order.
Information — or an informer, or work — is required to overcome entropy.
Evolution postulates that the common observation of an increase in biological complexity is because all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is prima facie antithetical to the dictates of entropy. If Darwinists want to keep their theory alive, they are required to show how "the sun" — which they usually point to — or something else creates genetic information in lifeforms.
When presented with this challenge, they have either ignored it, or they simply repeat their assumptions of random mutations and natural selection.
This boils down to "evolution is true because evolution is true."
Scientists rightly reject such nonsense.
Information — or an informer, or work — is required to overcome entropy.
Evolution postulates that the common observation of an increase in biological complexity is because all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is prima facie antithetical to the dictates of entropy. If Darwinists want to keep their theory alive, they are required to show how "the sun" — which they usually point to — or something else creates genetic information in lifeforms.
When presented with this challenge, they have either ignored it, or they simply repeat their assumptions of random mutations and natural selection.
This boils down to "evolution is true because evolution is true."
Scientists rightly reject such nonsense.
musterion
Well-known member
The flaws in radiometric dating are beyond belief! Here's just a taste...
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
Excerpt..."As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object. This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars. In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old. In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 + 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years. That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.
Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis. Most likely, that is the least important source of error. If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination. This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire. Their age was measured to be 6.0 +/- 0.3 billion years old. Do you see the problem? Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old. Obviously, then, the minimum error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!"
Absurd consistency of uranium isotope ratio IF formed in space: Consider this from Walt Brown's Origin of Earth's Radioactivity chapter:
The isotopes of each chemical element have almost constant ratios with each other. ... Why is the ratio of 235U to 238U in uranium ore deposits so constant almost everywhere on Earth? One very precise study showed that the ratio is 0.0072842, with a standard deviation of only 0.000017. [There's less than one U235 atom, with its 700M year half-life, for every hundred U238s, with their 4.5B year half-lives.] Obviously, the more time that elapses between the formation of the various isotopes (such as 235U and 238U) and the farther they are transported to their current resting places, the more varied those ratios should be. The belief that these isotopes formed in a supernova explosion millions of light-years away and billions of years before the Earth formed and somehow collected in small ore bodies in a fixed ratio is absurd. Powerful explosions would have separated the lighter isotopes from the heavier isotopes.
Some radioisotopes simultaneously produce two or more daughters. When that happens, the daughters have very precise ratios to each other, called branching ratios or branching fractions. Uranium isotopes are an example, because they are daughter products of some even heavier element. Recall that the Proton-21 Laboratory has produced superheavy elements that instantly decayed. Also, the global flux of neutrons during the flood provided nuclei with enough neutrons to reach their maximum stability. Therefore, isotope ratios for a given element are fixed. Had the flux of neutrons originated in outer space, we would not see these constant ratios worldwide. Because these neutrons originated at many specific points in the globe-encircling crust, these fixed ratios are global.
Last edited:
Darn, you stole my comeback plan! If you say this because I believe entropy does not contradict evolution, then you are wrong. If you are just cow rowing to your comrades at arms, you are wrong. If you recognize that concept is not as simple as it first seems and we all do not have a complete understanding of it, then kudos to you.
Right Divider
Body part
We as in Derf and I, Dingus. (I would like to include you in the we but your understanding is even more degraded.) The scientific construct of evolution is borne out repeatedly but like anything in science must be refined going forward.LOL.... "we all do not have a complete understanding of it"... but ... evolution.
Last edited:
Entropy involves energy. The overall energy is depleted. The overall order decreases over time, but both order and disorder can be created within the system. An ocean carves a beach creating an intricate ordered coastline, but it tears up rocks decreasing order.
Wrong. Ninety-five percent of physicists endorse evolution. They understand entropy well. How can this be?
The process of evolution involves both increased complexity and decreased complexity depending on the environment. If a more complex form reduces fecundity, it may die out while a simplier form survives. Coach roaches will likely outlast humanity.
The sun heats the earth and the earth radiates heat out that dissipates in space. The oceans store heat and create weather cycles. The ocean tide is controlled by the moon. Cycles are created by the effects of multiple physical forces acting on one another. The earth has various zones that support biomass and vast areas that do not. A simplistic notion of entropy will not deny well established order in the face of purely physoical forces. I do not know the precise mechanisms that allowed microbial life to begin but I do now how it developed once started. No designer necessary.
Ninety-seven percent of scientists overall accept evolution. Why is that?
Right Divider
Body part
It matters not who you meant. You don't understand a thing, but claim that "evolution" still "works".
Nonsense. You just regurgitate silly ideas that you don't understand.
The "scientific construct of evolution" is anti-science. It is opposed by science at every turn. And yet, many like you, "believe" it.
Right Divider
Body part
Because you made that up and it's baloney.
Right Divider
Body part
As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
You use a fiction writer as an authority?
Right Divider
Body part
Nobody has even a vague mechanism that allowed microbial life to begin by purely material means. That is ALL bluff and bluster.
No, you nor anyone else "now (sp) how it developed once started". Again, nothing but bluff and bluster.
Right Divider
Body part
- He's correct, so it matters not what his profession was.
- He was well versed in science, unlike yourself.
You acknowledge covid variants do you not? What is a new variant other than a small segment of natural selection?
Right Divider
Body part
The created kinds change. So what?
That does not mean that a single-celled creature can magically turn into a man.
Note AGAIN that natural SELECTION only SELECTS from what already exists. It is NOT a creative force.