Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[CabinetMaker]

The different disciplines of science may be able to be used to supplement and describe properties of other disciplines. The different disciplines often work together to define more than any one would be able to do by itself. That does not mean that the different disciplines should be treated as if they are completely interchangeable as is being done with the first law of thermodynamics.

Nobody is doing that. What has been discovered is that there is a equivalence between mass and energy. All that means is that if a certain amount of mass is converted into energy, the system will remain in balance because the energy that is created equals the mass that was used to create it. If energy is converted into mass then the amount of mass created will offset the loss of energy exactly. The laws of conservation of mass and the conservation of energy are not violated. This is what happens in science. As we learn more things, we sometimes have to reexamine things. In this case, E=mc^2 and its relationship to the laws of thermodynamics needed to be reexamined and it was found that E=mc^2 doesn't change anything. The implications become somewhat broader, but that is all. In all honesty, E=mc^2 has virtually no impact on thermodynamics because unless mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass, who cares. If we are going to convert mass into energy, well, lets just say that thermodynamics is not generally used to design nuclear weapons.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Because you refuse to answer it. :duh:

He wont. I asked him if he ever studied thermodynamics and he never answered the question. At least not directly.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nobody is doing that. What has been discovered is that there is a equivalence between mass and energy. All that means is that if a certain amount of mass is converted into energy, the system will remain in balance because the energy that is created equals the mass that was used to create it. If energy is converted into mass then the amount of mass created will offset the loss of energy exactly. The laws of conservation of mass and the conservation of energy are not violated. This is what happens in science. As we learn more things, we sometimes have to reexamine things. In this case, E=mc^2 and its relationship to the laws of thermodynamics needed to be reexamined and it was found that E=mc^2 doesn't change anything. The implications become somewhat broader, but that is all. In all honesty, E=mc^2 has virtually no impact on thermodynamics because unless mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass, who cares. If we are going to convert mass into energy, well, lets just say that thermodynamics is not generally used to design nuclear weapons.

Thermodynamics is also not generally used to design radio signals.

 

[Jose Fly]

He wont. I asked him if he ever studied thermodynamics and he never answered the question. At least not directly.

That's the basic outline of pretty much every online interaction with a creationist. It's what prompted one person to compare attempting conversation with creationists to trying to nail jello to a tree during a hurricane.

It's why creationists always lose in court and science. Both are arenas where you can't dodge questions without consequence.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That's the basic outline of pretty much every online interaction with Jose Fly

FTFY, and you are welcome.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Thermodynamics is also not generally used to design radio signals.

Wow. Deep. I'll go get my waders.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Wow. Deep. I'll go get my waders.

Can we get back to a discussion on evolution now?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Can we get back to a discussion on evolution now?

For some strange reason, I rather doubt it. But by all means, please proceed.

 

[Stripe]

Energy overcomes entropy.

But you won't explain how (without employing the logical fallacy of begging the question).

 

[CabinetMaker]

But you won't explain how (without employing the logical fallacy of begging the question).

I'm sure you have sufficient scientific background to understand energy transfer.

 

[Stripe]

I'm sure you have sufficient scientific background to understand energy transfer.

And I'm sure you have nothing of value to contribute.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And I'm sure you have nothing of value to contribute.

Swell, I suppose I could shine a little sun on the topic. One example of the sun overcoming entropy is photosynthesis.

 

[Stripe]

One example of the sun overcoming entropy is photosynthesis.

I see that you're utterly unwilling to even understand the question.

 

[CabinetMaker]

But you won't explain how (without employing the logical fallacy of begging the question).

And I'm sure you have nothing of value to contribute.

I see that you're utterly unwilling to even understand the question.

You never asked a question

 

[Stripe]

You never asked a question

:darwinsm:

You're a special kind of dumb today, huh?

 

[Silent Hunter]

The different disciplines of science may be able to be used to supplement and describe properties of other disciplines. The different disciplines often work together to define more than any one would be able to do by itself. That does not mean that the different disciplines should be treated as if they are completely interchangeable as is being done with the first law of thermodynamics.

Nobody is doing that. What has been discovered is that there is a equivalence between mass and energy. All that means is that if a certain amount of mass is converted into energy, the system will remain in balance because the energy that is created equals the mass that was used to create it. If energy is converted into mass then the amount of mass created will offset the loss of energy exactly. The laws of conservation of mass and the conservation of energy are not violated. This is what happens in science. As we learn more things, we sometimes have to reexamine things. In this case, E=mc^2 and its relationship to the laws of thermodynamics needed to be reexamined and it was found that E=mc^2 doesn't change anything. The implications become somewhat broader, but that is all. In all honesty, E=mc^2 has virtually no impact on thermodynamics because unless mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass, who cares. If we are going to convert mass into energy, well, lets just say that thermodynamics is not generally used to design nuclear weapons.

Thermodynamics is also not generally used to design radio signals.

I'm not sure what this has to do with CM's explanation and explains his, "So what?" reply.

Thermodynamics could be used to determine how much radio energy is needed to boil a quantity of water (if one were so inclined) and this property makes it understandable why it is dangerous to expose one's body to strong radio sources.

That you still fail to comprehend the interrelationships, after having the concepts explained to you on multiple occasions and in multiple ways, clearly identifies you as someone who will probably never understand what CM and I are saying. That you have never studied thermodynamics, or any science it seems, is rather clear.

If you have any more questions I will attempt to dumb-down my explanations to your level.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Well it seems this thread is a total and complete failure!
Too bad

 

[Stuu]

Well it seems this thread is a total and complete failure!
Too bad

The basic problem with the OP is that there is no debate. Evolution is the fact established independently in the fossil record and in differences in modern genomes, and natural selection is the central organising principle of biology, whereas creationism is a bizarre fantasy conspiracy theory in which god believers make up fictional naturalistic mechanisms that allow them to avoid having to mention the magic said to have been performed by their god.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Well it seems this thread is a total and complete failure!Too bad

What did you expect after you ignored the responses you were given? :idunno:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Evolution is the fact established independently in the fossil record

The "fossil record" is an imaginary ladder of sedimentary rock layers which is not found completely anywhere on the world. In many places whole layers are missing, or are out of order. You can find "young" layers resting on bedrock with supposed billions of years missing. The "record" does not exist. There is no "geologic column," as you may have seen it in dinosaur books, going from Cambrian, Ordivician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, etc.

The idea that such a sequence is actual comes from inferring that layers in one place must fit in somewhere with layers in another place, either side by side, on top, or on bottom. But who says they have to? The inference is not from science but from necessity because it comes from a naturalistic worldview where the layers must represent long ages of sequential time periods. If they are simply sediment deposits from a worldwide flood, there is no reason to assume that global sediments must have been deposited in the same sequence at all locations on the globe. So the missing layers and out of order layers are no problem in a Biblical framework.


AMR