Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: DWPittelli; gore3000
The problem with the "open" vs. "closed" system argument is that the "open" system of an essentially unlimited, suitable supply of energy (which you point to in hopes of getting past the relevant Thermodynamic issue) has likewise been available for the millions of years you believe you require to fuel random acts of progressive evolution on Earth without any loss in thermodynamic energy expenditure to the system.

While I can make the argument that the sun, earth, and the rest of the universe are themselves closed systems in that their supplies of energy are limited to the amount of fuel they have left to burn, did you ever ask youself the following question:

Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures?

The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.

Quite simply, if you haven't got the time, you haven't got a "theory."

As to your argument on chance assembly of simplest of life forms (which you do admit is unlikely) ask youself the probability that the essential oxygen transporting protein Cytochrome C (104 amino acid primary structure, never mind secondary) could spontaneously come into being. That figure is a chance of 1 in 20 to the 104th power. Now give it a reason to come into being in what evolutionists speculate earlier on was an anaerobic primordial soup.

209 posted on 10/12/2002 1:33:31 PM PDT by Agamemnon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Agamemnon
Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures? The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Creationist projections maybe - but then who cares about projections based on deliberate ignorance?

212 posted on 10/12/2002 3:02:18 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: Agamemnon
Where the earth's magnetic moment decay is also a rate which can and has been determined, according to current rates of decay earth's uninhabitability falls on this side of 50,000 years.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! You really are funny.

1. The "habitability' of the Earth is entirely unrelated to direction or strength of it's magnetic field.
2. The Earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the past. It is always waxing or waning in one direction or the other.

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA! I can't wait for your next "scientific" announcement of doom.

214 posted on 10/12/2002 3:08:23 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: Agamemnon
Given the rate of solar burn currently observed, how far back can one go in time before the amount of fuel that the sun has to consume makes the sun so large that the earth itself is uninhabitable by even the heartiest of spore forming creatures? The most generous projections allow for no more than 100,000 years, and more likely 10,000 years.

So you creationists are so wedded to your Biblical literalism that now you reject all of astrononomy as well as one of the most obviously true tenets of biology? Your argument was made 300 years ago. At that time it was not asinine, as it was widely assumed the Sun burned like coal. Now we know of fusion.

And of course, the size of the Sun has not been been a topic with widely varying answers at least since shortly after it was accepted that the Earth went around it.

What's next in your fantasy universe, a flat Earth?

222 posted on 10/12/2002 5:03:35 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: Agamemnon
Ask youself the probability that the essential oxygen transporting protein Cytochrome C (104 amino acid...) could spontaneously come into being. That figure is a chance of 1 in 20 to the 104th power. Now give it a reason to come into being in what evolutionists speculate earlier on was an anaerobic primordial soup.

There was no reason. And of course it didn't. If you set up your own straw man, in this case, an unreasonably unlikely evolutionary sequence, you will find it easy to knock down. Proving nothing.

226 posted on 10/12/2002 5:18:14 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

To: Agamemnon
I can make the argument that the sun, earth, and the rest of the universe are themselves closed systems in that their supplies of energy are limited to the amount of fuel they have left to burn

Yes, but if you include the Sun, then order in the sytem is decreasing. While life on Earth may be morally of great significance, its physical significance in thermodynamic terms is pretty muich defined by its mass: much less than that consumed in the Sun.

227 posted on 10/12/2002 5:21:46 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson