A Little Housekeeping at FR!
This is DAY 41 of the FReepathon! Please End it!
DONATE
Posted on 08/09/2011 7:23:55 AM PDT by Sopater
It is an argument so stupid that it has a really simple answer. So yes, the same answer will always be given - the Sun.
Show me a mathematical equation of thermodynamics that includes “information”.
You cannot.
No matter - you will no doubt just move on to an even more preposterous ignorant and irrelevant argument.
Oh yeah, he believes in evolution.
Creationism is that rare combination of sophistry, fairy tales, and righteous indignation.
Being a Creationist means never having to let a little thing like evidence change your mind about something.
Why would you? You’ve already come to the conclusion before you’ve even started, so evidence really isn’t even necessary.
bfl
So yes, of course. No equation that included “information”. What you think you know just isn’t so.
So your next argument is fallacy after fallacy. First I worship God - not the Sun. Second I didn’t say the Sun was all that was needed - I said that the Sun was what rendered your entropy argument absolutely irrelevant.
Systems run down without an input of energy. The Sun is a daily input of energy.
Still waiting for your “equation” that includes “information”.
The more ignorant someone is - the more likely they are to be a Creationist.
AMD you stated in post #14 of this thread:
“The theory of evolution is a well supported theory based upon easily observed and understood mechanisms. Evolution and natural selection is the inevitable consequence of imperfect replication and competition.”
I must ask you to please show us the formal theory for evolution and please include any and all tests for falsifying it as well b/c I don’t believe any exists.
You claimed evolution as science yet I do not think it follows the scientific method. Please show us all how you can test and repeat same for transitional lifeforms. If you are at all honest you will have to admit that anything involving eons of history is non-repeatable.
POOF there it is the single cell ~ 3 billion lines of code can not assemble and correct itself. When evolution is dissected it shows oodles of assumptions and miracles. Miracles mind you that have no explanation and no author.
No wait POOF the Cambrian explosion of mutiple never before seen life-forms appear on the scene all at once. Mankind would have to create a time machine in order to develop any repeatable tests for your beloved evo theory.
Of course there is no step in the scientific method where you are allowed to throw out any/all data that contradicts your theory either.
AMD you also stated
“Supposing that God created an imperfect creation that needs constant tinkering to keep the house of cards aloft (ID or Incompetent Design) is not science and it is piss poor theology.”
Yep I agree your theology is piss poor for when God completed his 6 days of creation he declared it good meaning perfect without spot or blemish. God is not tinkering to create evolution rather sin is at work causing death and decay worldwide for all life on this planet.
This is easily observed. There have been hundreds of thousands of experiments where it has been observed. Falsification would be if there were no change in living systems, or that these changes were non-adaptive.
Now you are confusing evolution and common descent? A common mistake among the ignorant.
We cannot reproduce our Star forming through gravity and nuclear fusion - does that mean that such a model of star formation is not scientific in your bizarro world?
Does one need to take two continents and thrust them together in order to know and understand the scientific model of continental upthrusting causing mountain formation?
The fact is that the current rate of observed mutation is both necessary and sufficient towards explaining a 2% genetic DNA change between us and our closest living relative. Just as the current rate of observed erosion is both necessary and sufficient towards explaining valley formation.
So you think that genetic change can only lead to death and decay?
That is an easily falsifiable hypothesis. And it has been falsified. Too bad you are too ignorant to realize it.
trite tripe.
again.
as usual.
ho hum.
yawn...
AMD “Now you are confusing evolution and common descent? A common mistake among the ignorant.”
OK, I’m ignorant since I’ve never seen anyone split these into 2 theories so please provide falsification for evolution and the theory of [and falsification tests for ] common descent.
AMD “We cannot reproduce our Star forming through gravity and nuclear fusion - does that mean that such a model of star formation is not scientific in your bizarro world?”
Again scientific method depends upon repeatability.
AMD “Does one need to take two continents and thrust them together in order to know and understand the scientific model of continental upthrusting causing mountain formation?”
Plate tectonics is a very shaky theory at best AND again it is not repeatable and relies on uniformity in continental shiftings.
AMD “The fact is that the current rate of observed mutation is both necessary and sufficient towards explaining a 2% genetic DNA change between us and our closest living relative.”
Since there have been many many articles since 2005 you really need to abandon this fraudulent science - simply put there is much more than a 2% difference between humans and chimps even though your posts in this thread below also disagree.
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2565348/posts
AMD”So you think that genetic change can only lead to death and decay?”
You can twist my words all you want but in spite of adaptations, genetic drift will eventually lead to decay and death.
AMD “That is an easily falsifiable hypothesis. And it has been falsified. Too bad you are too ignorant to realize it.”
Talk is cheap so at least provide us all a link
So your stance is that the theory of star formation through gravity and nuclear fusion is not scientific because it cannot be repeated in the lab? Laughable.
Plate tech-tonics is a well accepted theory in Geology - once again showing that Creationists do not just have a problem with one theory and one scientist and one branch of science - but with just about every scientific theory, almost every scientist, and every branch of science.
Do you understand that a 2% difference in genetic DNA is not the same as a difference in genomic DNA? Obviously not. Just another in the long list of things you are absolutely ignorant about.
There is a 2% difference in genetic DNA between a human and a chimpanzee.
If you cannot even accept that simple reality you have a LONG LONG way to go before you can ever know or understand this subject - a good first step would be to stop relying upon Creationist sources. Creationist sources take advantage of the fact that the more ignorant someone is the more likely they are to be a Creationist - thus they conflate genetic DNA similarity with genomic DNA similarity to lead their not very bright followers to an incorrect conclusion.
There is a 2% difference between humans and chimps in GENETIC DNA.
Denying reality is apparently all you can do about this simple and easily confirmed fact.
If you don't believe it - the sequence of many many genes are known and available online- compare via a BLAST the human and chimp DNA for the collagen gene for example - you will find an approximate 2% difference in any gene(s) you care to compare.
Don't take my word for it......
“sin is at work causing death and decay worldwide for all life on this planet.”
How does this “sin” physically manifest itself in ensuring that there will be death and decay, from the initial state which was “perfect”, worldwide for all life on this planet?
Do you have a physical mechanism - or is it a magical mechanism whereby sin causes eventual death and decay from the initial perfect state?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.