Skip to comments.
Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
The American Spectator ^
| December 28, 2005
| Granville Sewell
Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,461-1,471 next last
To: johnnyb_61820; PatrickHenry
Ping.
A lot of silly creo talk! LOL!
A lot of silly creo talk! LOL!
81
posted on
12/28/2005 4:14:15 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(I trust my intuition and speak my truth... Don't accuse me of your imagination!)
To: Frank Sheed
82
posted on
12/28/2005 4:14:24 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: My2Cents
Personally, I get sunburned.
To: Strategerist
Only new twist to this one is that it's an actual professor in the Texas State University system, which doesn't really reflect well on Texas. He's a mathematician. You know what's coming with creationist mathematicians. Don't look at the math. Look at everything else. In this case, physics and biology.
84
posted on
12/28/2005 4:14:49 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: phantomworker; johnnyb_61820
"What exactly do you mean by that! Can you give an example?" A magnificent, omnipotent orderizer, of course!
85
posted on
12/28/2005 4:16:38 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: editor-surveyor
Here's a nickel. Buy yourself a chemistry book. If you are feeling adventurous, look up computational chemistry.I think a computational chem book will cost more than a nickel. I can lend you a credit card if you're strapped for funds. It is that series!!!!
86
posted on
12/28/2005 4:17:16 PM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
To: Strategerist
As an atheist with no (zero) interest in religion, I support what you're saying.
But it's probably wisest to simply admit to religiously inclined people that the "First Cause" of everything can't be known, since scientific knowledge is always improving and is an approximation (more knowledge is always possible).
That should satisfy the smart theists - and, - it's accurate.
Intelligent design is an unfortunate development - since we really don't KNOW if things are "complex".... or not. "Complex, " -- compared to WhAt? Things could be very simple, or very complex basically. We just don't know. They are what they are. We know things are being pushed around into 'clumps' that LOOK complex, but that's about it. What's pushing them? Who knows? Scientists will NEVER know the final answer to that question, since they'll always want to push it back a Step FURTHER. That's why I'm an atheist. I know when to say, "Gee, I don't KNOW... hmm."
It's best to leave this intelligent design stuff alone. It's a non-starter for empirical purposes.
87
posted on
12/28/2005 4:17:31 PM PST
by
4Liberty
(Privatize, don't subsidize.)
To: Neanderthal
Well said. My Thermo teacher started out as a classic physics guy and moved over - he explained the subject better than anyone I have ever heard do it. Too bad he is dead now he would love to take a shot at this guy.
I believe that most people have a hard time understanding the time line. They get hung up on 7 days or 7 billion years. The sun has been around long enough to deposit an unbelievable amount of energy on Earth (1 Kw/square meter average. Think about that in terms of 1000's of years.
By this guys logic should we be running out of stuff to make new people with? But the population on earth continues to grow?
88
posted on
12/28/2005 4:18:27 PM PST
by
mad_as_he$$
(Never corner anything meaner than you. NSDQ)
To: editor-surveyor
And of course the reaction between the strong reducing agent sodium, and the strong oxidizer, chlorine, is strictly a matter of chance then? /me blinks.
The outcome of the interaction is so strongly biased toward one particular result that for casual purposes we do not treat it as probabilistic, though it is. For most chemical systems which are not so biased, you end up with a more obviously probabilistic mix.
89
posted on
12/28/2005 4:19:37 PM PST
by
tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
To: xmission
" Most ALL of the replies are insults only." Minor correction, but I believe you've grokked the essence of the church of evolutionism.
90
posted on
12/28/2005 4:20:03 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: onedoug
91
posted on
12/28/2005 4:20:52 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: onedoug
92
posted on
12/28/2005 4:20:56 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: tortoise
93
posted on
12/28/2005 4:23:48 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: DallasMike; editor-surveyor; Cicero; keithtoo; manwiththehands; johnnyb_61820
Order can arise spontaneously out of disorder: an example.
You can do this in your kitchen. Take 1 cup of water, 1 cup of oil (olive or mazola or motor will do), pour into cocktail shaker and shake vigorously for 1 minute. Pour into a clear glass container.
You will see a very great deal of disorder in the liquid. Leave undisturbed for 1-2 hours (doesn't matter if there is light or darkness).
Observe again: You will see that the oil has spontaneously ("miraculously"?) risen to the top, and the water is nicely separated below. ORDER has appeared.
Please explain this via your interpretation of the 2nd Law and entropy.
94
posted on
12/28/2005 4:23:57 PM PST
by
thomaswest
(Just Curious)
To: phantomworker; Junior
Thanks. But I'm not going to bother the evolution ping list for this thread.
95
posted on
12/28/2005 4:24:50 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: js1138
I continue to be amazed at the certainty with which evolution supporters make their claims. In fact, you would think with all of this certitude they wouldn't need to use insults such as "pig ignorant."
To: editor-surveyor
And of course the reaction between the strong reducing agent sodium, and the strong oxidizer, chlorine, is strictly a matter of chance then????? Huh?
Of course not.
You have become incoherent.
97
posted on
12/28/2005 4:27:05 PM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: BereanBrain
good way of putting it. The article was not an confirmation of intelligent design but a reasoned arguement that evolution taken on it's scientific merits is suspect. That's what scientists are supposed to do.
98
posted on
12/28/2005 4:27:18 PM PST
by
bubman
To: xmission; DaveLoneRanger
I see an awful lot of unanswered questions posed to the evolutionists. Most of the replies are insults only. One problem is that creationists are lumped into a single class. I'm horrified by the idea of a 6,000-year old universe and believe that people who push the idea are misinterpreting both science and the Bible. All truth is God's truth. I personally accept the idea that the universe is around 15 billion years old and that evolution of some sort takes place, yet I'm lumped in with those who believe in a 6,000-year old universe.whale.
Michael Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity is profound. The bladderwort example he used here is compelling but, as a chemist by training, the most astonishing examples are things that take many different chemicals being in exactly the right place at the time for something to happen. With eyesight, for example, a large number of complex chemicals are involved. If any one of these chemicals are missing, the result is not just the animal seeing slightly less well (and thus slightly more likely to get eaten) but in being totally blind. How did all of these chemicals needed for vision end up in the right place?
If the body creates complex chemicals "by chance" in the hope that they might someday turn out to be useful, then we ought to expect to see hundreds of thousands of chemicals just hanging around in the body, waiting to be used when a species evolves an X-Ray eye or laser tail stinger. However, we don't see this at all. There are chemicals in the human body for which we don't yet know their function, but they're rare. The body is very efficient and doesn't make things that it doesn't use.
99
posted on
12/28/2005 4:27:20 PM PST
by
DallasMike
(Call me Dallasaurus)
To: thomaswest
Take 1 cup of waterMust it be distilled water? This is science after all and we want to be precise to 24 decimal places.
100
posted on
12/28/2005 4:28:18 PM PST
by
Frank Sheed
("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 1,461-1,471 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson