Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Meyer, hmmm. Isn't he that history teacher? Yeah, we really want to go to a history teacher for our science classes, DUH ...
and my posts and those of others make clear that the sun can NOT be a sufficient source of entropy decrease.
Your posts have shown you to be totally ignorant on science and just a regurgitator of the false propaganda of the creationists' websites.
Meyer, hmmm. Isn't he that history teacher? Yeah, we really want to go to a history teacher for our science classes, DUH ...
and my posts and those of others make clear that the sun can NOT be a sufficient source of entropy decrease.
Your posts have shown you to be totally ignorant on science and just a regurgitator of the false propaganda of the creationists' websites.
They sound like whining liberals.
Their tool of choice? Ad-Hominem attack. Thinking people are never persuaded by such nonsense. It actually makes their claims look more suspect.
'Course, they can always try to throw a few billion more monkeys at typewriters at the equation. Maybe they can find another trillion years or so to boot.
I gotta admit, it is mildly amusing to watch them squirm. They think they are still relevant.
From his DVD?
No. A pickiness to correct your incorrect formulas.
Genesis says the Sun was created on the 1sh day. do you believe it?
Genesis says land animals were created after Adam. do you believe it?
.schuelers.com/ChaosPsyche/part_1_9.htm
Lord Eddington stated;
If your theory contradicts the Second Law
I can offer you no hope."
]I'll take Eddington over Asimov]
Your link makes one passing reference to Eddington. For you to imply that Eddington is on your side of false science is totally false.
The evidence for the existence of space aliens is about the same as that for evolution.
No problem. Evolution does not contradict the Second Law.
Since you switch topics, I assume you have no response to my statement and thus agree with it.
I didn't say Eddington was on that site.
Quit the hysterical panic!
You don't believe in ID?
Have you always been this stupid; or did you work at it?
"The general equation for an open system is: dS > dQ/T + dmisi - dmoso
I guess you do believe in ID, after all.
I suspect the Freeper whose screen name is "JS" is a bit surprised at being pinged to this thread.
Abiogenesis is in the hypothesis stage. Whether it happened or not is irrelevant to whether evolution happens.
Science does not speak to miracles because it is impossible to prove that a miracle did not occur.
Suppose people in Washington D.C. wake up one morning to find a 300 foot redwood tree firmly planted in the Mall. A miracle, right? Now suppose you take a core sample of the tree and find it has rings indicating an age of 2000 years. What would this prove or disprove?
My point is that the earth has tree rings, and life has tree rings. Science deals with how things on this earth work; it deals only with the regularities we label natural laws. The evidence that is visible to us indicates an age of the earth in billions of years. The evidence of DNA indicates all life is related by common descent.
The actual history -- whether this history is "real" or whether the miracles are real -- is unimportant to science. But the interpretation of the tree rings is important because it is derived from theories about how things work in the present and how they will work in the future. These theories have consequence in engineering and medicine.
It is irrelevant which interpretation of history is "real", but it is important in our everyday lives to decide which interpretation is based on how ongoing, regular, "natural" processes work.
No Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy -- those are both beliefs.
Do you "believe" in that keyboard in front of you? What the heck difference would it make if you did or did not.
The keyboard would still be there. You of course, could ignore it.
Or do you "believe" in good whiskey? The bottle at right hand is still there, "belief" or not.
Now ... if you "believe" the whiskey is a fine lively taste to the palate and warms the gut you will, I'd say and most physiologists too, I'd guesss -- you will actually taste your "belief". Perhaps it is that such "belief" pre-conditions the palate, the gut, the body chemical. Maybe. But this is to say that "belief" can be a great thing in the right context -- to improve the taste of things, to improve the comfort, the enjoyement.
Or reveresed -- a negative "belief" will also color taste and take on things.
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.