Sure, if everything were steam engines. The law is much more general than that.
I have to spend $6000 this month on lowering my house's entrophy. Dry rot.
Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
You're right. It's like getting the Hatfields and McCoys into the same room.
No,it’s not adherence to the scientific method that’s the issue. It’s adherence to the ToE. I’ve seen frevo non-scientists tell creationist scientists that they don’t even know what a theory is because they don’t accept the ToE.
Anytime someone points out a scientist whose a creationist, the knee jerk reaction is *but he’s not a REAL scientist*.
A non-scientists passing judgment on a scientist simply because of their view on the ToE. How would the non-scientist even know what HE was talking about?
You think you know but you haven’t a clue... kind of like edumaction...
I teach science kid... and now you know.
To a certain extent you are correct.
However, life requires directed energy to survive. Directed by information contained within the organism. Once this directed process is interrupted the second law reasserts itself and we become compost as the second law dictates.
Without intervention the second law always gets its way in the end.
A further refinement of what I said last time: Not only does he hold his ancestors in contempt, but also his descendents (if any). For the fruition of his evident ideological commitment appears to be such as would absolutely deny them any opportunity of living in liberty, as free men. Any reader interested in the details of how this “new paradigm” plays out is invited to read C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man.
To provide context, what is being gotten rid of is something along these lines:
At the level of common sense, it is evident that human beings have experiences other than sensory perceptions, and it is equally evident that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle explored reality on the basis of experiences far removed from perception. The Socratic “Look and see if this is not the case” does not invite one to survey public opinion but asks one to descend into the psyche, that is, to search reflective consciousness. Moreover, it is evident that the primary nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human existence superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, of all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality. Apperceptive experience is distinguishable from sensory perception and a philosophical science of substance from a natural science of phenomena. Experience of “things” is modeled on the subject-object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness attends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human experience itself – and of what is most precious to mankind – a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. [Ellis Sandoz, ed., “Editor’s Introduction,” in Collective Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 12, 1990; p. xx.]It goes without saying that an ethical model that places its ultimate value on sexual freedom and “political innovation” has little use for understandings of this nature. Hence the necessity of “ending history,” of erasing the past, in order to advance such propositions.
Well, my two cents, FWIW.
No wonder you have such a low opinion of education.
Sure, if everything were steam engines. The law is much more general than that.
I have to spend $6000 this month on lowering my house's entrophy. Dry rot.
Hey, at least I can read.
That is debatable.
You can throw around insults but nothing you have posted has shown any sign of intelligence.
The Darwin Exhibit at the Field Museum of Natural History is averaging twice that.
Which crashes more frequently?
I know that I have read a few testimonies from biologists that have renounced their belief in Evo and now are firmly in the creationist camp. Their reason for their conversion was that the more they kept digging the more the evidence pointed to an Intelligent Creator.
I wish I could find those testimonies.
[”Because those who discovered the evidence... come to a conclusion 180 degrees from jim, who I assume has little actualy training in the field.”]
Actualy(sic), I do have significant training in “the field,” if you are referring to the biological sciences. I have 2 separate degrees in the biological sciences, a B.S. in nursing, and another in medical technology, with minors in chemistry and history.
And those who discovered the evidence, can you, number one, point with certainty to their beliefs? And number two, would it matter? And number three, would it make them right about God?
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly evolutionists jump to conclusions about those who oppose their opinions, but it does say something about the thought processes of such secular cheerleaders. Their minds are made up, and the facts aren’t about to get in their way.
"How would the non-scientist even know what HE was talking about?"
You didn't answer the question.
You've had numerous scientists here and you (personally) told them all they were wrong.
Oh I have? ALL of them? Please provide the evidence.
So, what exactly is your background metmom?
BA in Meteorology, which you knew already because I've made no secret of it. I also have some college level biology.
And for the record, I'm still waiting for your evidence or prediction.
It's up to the person setting forth the theory to establish what it is that will falsify it. That would be Darwin's responsibility. Or are you going to change the rules of the game?
[The real problem is that until recently, men (and women) of God were required to also be men of science. Nowadays, you can become a “pastor” just by having a bad haircut and the ability to say “Lord” in three syllables. ]
Not entirely accurate. There have always been lay-preachers, as far back as religion goes. Some have been great, and some total wackos. Much like in every scientific field.
I do agree, however, that science and religion are entirely compatible, at least as far as Christianity goes. I can’t speak for other religions.
Who said anything about Theistic Evolution? (Except you.)
First of all, there are two accounts of creation in Genesis, and they conflict. Reconciling them with science is pointless, however, because it is not the job of spiritual truth to reconcile itself with natural observations nor is is the job of natural science to reconcile itself with theological mysteries. A functioning faith must have both a systematic cosmology and a systematic theology, but these two things do not have to be the same.
I think that Jesus will object to you calling God a liar. God may have created the world in six days six thousand years ago — heck, He may have created it yesterday — but He sure went to a lot of trouble making it look billions of years old. God may have created species in their current form, but he sure went to a lot of trouble to create a fossil record that documents changes over millions of years.
(Also see 215, 1063, 2465, 2466)
In the Bible, and in Isaiah particularly, we see the fact that "God is Truth" hammered home. "Amen" means "it is truth" and is sometimes translated as "verily." Light from stars billions of light years away is currently reaching our planet. There are countless fossils documenting the truth of the ToE. Amen.
There are some threads about that on FR and any of the evos who have been in these debates for more than a couple months know that.
It would seem pretty obvious to the casual observer that order and complexity are indicators of intelligence and design, but I guess that you have to be educated into NOT believing that.
You’d think that Newton and Einstein believing that the universe showed evidence of a creator and design would be good enough, but I guess some think they know better than them.
Do you even have a clue what you're talking about here? When you get a spare moment, go outside and take a look at that big yellow ball up in the sky and then explain what thermodynamics and entropy have to do with evolution. Don't stare too long though, The truth might blind you!
Newton comes to mind.
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.