Creationists take heed - Page 2

Rogan Josh · May 9, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Religious fundamentalism often goes hand-in-hand with moral bigotry.

What a bigoted statement!

Boris Godunov · May 9, 2003, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
What a bigoted statement!

No it isn't. Observation of fact. A complete literal adherence to the Bible inherently involves being a moral bigot, since the Bible commands one to be as such.

Giancarlo · May 9, 2003, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Right, well that's that then. May as well all go home.

Try reasoned argument, Fez, 'cause no-one is going to be convinced by pathetic statements like that from some spotty homosexual Brazilian kid....

Support Creationism. For goodness sakes, stop talking about me and support creationism. How can you support it? Infact I will give you an insightful link today:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...ationists.html

I took my time to hunt that link down for you... and it shows the fallacies of creationism.

Homosexual? Yes. Brazilian? No... but Brazilian guys are cute..

Quote:

You provide no source...you PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy Jesus...you criminal...

Pshaw.

HolyWarrior · May 9, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

[SIZE=1] One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.

The demonstration, by chemical physicists in Australia, could place a fundamental limit on miniaturization, because it suggests that the micro-scale devices envisaged by nanotechnologists will not behave like simple scaled-down versions of their larger counterparts - they could sometimes run backwards.

I fail to see what a limit on miniturization has to do with the second law of thermodynamics.

Giancarlo · May 9, 2003, 16:42

Read the articles before you make assumptions. Of course, the creationist side is full of lies and assumptions.

raghar · May 9, 2003, 17:07

Do you reffer to young earth? Or creationistical evolution? They are two different things. Creationistical evolution says... well I shouldn't go to much depth in this thread.

Giancarlo · May 9, 2003, 17:31

I thought the source covered the fallacies of both arguments?

CyberGnu · May 9, 2003, 17:56

New Scientist suffers from way to much editorial meddling... The science is usually sounds and well reported, but the editors change stuff to make it more "sensational"

The point of the research is the establish boundaries where classical vs. quantum chemistry takes place. Since nano-machines are by definition only one molecule big, they should be expexted to exhibit quantum chemical behaviour. This research suggests that even slightly larger systems are controlled by quantum mechanics... Not terribly surprising, but a nice validation.

As far as the headline goes, I'm willing to bet good money that there is New Scientist journalist who is mightly pissed at his editor right now...

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2003, 18:53

Quote:

They quote the second law to disprove evolution - as evolution breaks the second law (according to them at least) it cannot be a natural or occuring phenomenon.

UR:

Just because you have found one suspected violation of the second law, does not mean that evolution also results from this particular violation of the second law.

Your case does not prove all that you want it to prove.

GePap · May 9, 2003, 18:59

Obiwan..I think the MC Hawkings quote is the best post s far on this topic.

BustaMike · May 9, 2003, 19:04

To quote the original post

Quote:

One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.

The demonstration, by chemical physicists in Australia, could place a fundamental limit on miniaturisation, because it suggests that the micro-scale devices envisaged by nanotechnologists will not behave like simple scaled-down versions of their larger counterparts - they could sometimes run backwards.

This should be perfectly obvious if you think about it. Energy, when looked at at a fundamental level, can be quantified into units (example - electrical currents are made of moving electrons). Each electron contains a quantifiable amount of energy, so as the system gets smaller and smaller it no longer is perfectly smooth. A good analogy is your computer monitor. From far away it looks smooth, but zoom in really close and you can see the pixels or even just one pixel. Same with any system. Zoom in enough and you no longer have a system, you just have one particle and the second law doesn't really apply because the particle isn't interacting with anything, it's by itself.

Ben Kenobi · May 9, 2003, 19:10

Only in closed systems must the entropy count rise.

Indeed. What about the universe?

St Leo · May 9, 2003, 19:12

Creationistical evolution says... well I shouldn't go to much depth in this thread.

Quote:

Important facts from Galactic history, number two:
(Reproduced from the Siderial Daily Mentioner's Book of popular Galactic History.)
Since this Galaxy began, vast civilizations have risen and fallen, risen and fallen, risen and fallen so often that it's quite tempting to think that life in the Galaxy must be
(a) something akin to seasick - space-sick, time sick, history sick or some such thing, and
(b) stupid.

The problem with a divine fist controlling evolution is that nature's sieve doesn't appear to be teleological in the slightest. The same mistake are made over and over and over again.

Example:
-herbivores evolve really thick skin
-their predators evolve big teeth
-herbivores evolve thicker skin
-predators go all out and get sabre teeth
-some small omnivore takes up grazing
-thick-skinned herbivores starve to death
-slow giant-toothed predators starve to death
-the new herbivores start evolving thicker skin

This happenned several times in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. If it hadn't happenned in the Paleozoic, it was because leg structure was still the most important factor, thought it probably did. There were certainly enough mammal-like reptiles, reptiles, crocodile-like reptiles, and thecodonts frolicking for the Cycle of St00pidity to recur several times.

Quote:

"Life," said Marvin dolefully, "loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."

GePap · May 9, 2003, 19:12

We don't know if the universe is a closed system. Even if it is, a system the size of earth might as well be approaching the equivalent of the quantum level we are talking about, enough to make the Second Law aruemnt trully useless.

St Leo · May 9, 2003, 19:16

Indeed. What about the universe?

The Heat Death of the Universe is not expected for another trillion years. I'd be more concerned about the Andromeda Galaxy passing through ours; that's going to happen in about three billion years.:P

CyberGnu · May 9, 2003, 19:19

St. Leo, I think the thicker skin (or, more accurately, a thick layer of blubber under the skin) was developed as a reaction to colder temperatures during Ice Ages. Both the Mammoth and the Sable Tooth Tiger died after the last Ice age disappeared.

CyberGnu · May 9, 2003, 19:22

BTW, love your signature

raghar · May 9, 2003, 19:40

It was Douglas Addams, isn't it.

So you basicaly want to say something like this.
There are M1A2.
Then Russian build towerless 152 mm T-95.
Then US develop reactive armer for M1A2.
Then US opponents would mount gun on cars 1000 guns for price of 1 M1A2.

There were reasons for that.

BTW Temperature and sea levels on earth are cycling too. So no problem wiht that.

Kuciwalker · May 9, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
We don't know if the universe is a closed system. Even if it is, a system the size of earth might as well be approaching the equivalent of the quantum level we are talking about, enough to make the Second Law aruemnt trully useless.

Three points - one, the Universe is BY DEFINITION a closed system, because the Universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Thus there can be nothing outside the Universe, for it would not exist. Two, evolution can occur even in a closed system, because the entropy in another part of the system can increase correspondingly. Three, evolution does NOT imply a decrease in entropy. In fact, evolution may INCREASE entropy.

St Leo · May 9, 2003, 21:14

Both the Mammoth and the Sable Tooth Tiger died after the last Ice age disappeared.

Who said I was only talking about those two? BTW, we wiped out the Mammoths ourselves, so they wouldn't be a classic example of the cycle.

St Leo · May 9, 2003, 21:16

There were reasons for that.

BTW Temperature and sea levels on earth are cycling too. So no problem wiht that.

If a Deity is behaving in a way that for all intents and purposes suggests that there is no Deity, then that Deity might as well be assumed to not exist.

Elok · May 9, 2003, 23:50

I would argue with you guys, but my mom always warned me not to talk to strangers who say "creationistical." That word has too many modifying suffixes, dammit. A truly evolutionary lexicon would eliminate such an unwieldy construction over time. Therefore evolution does not exist. You should think this would all be obvious.

...No, I'm not sure which side I'm making fun of either...

Skanky Burns · May 10, 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
loinburger, the persuasion stick is not something to be joked about...

Of all the things to get upset about in this thread, you picked that one?

loinburger · May 10, 2003, 00:33

I thought that was odd as well. I mean, there are many persuasion sticks -- I thought that I'd done a good job of picking one of the least controversial ones.

Frogman · May 10, 2003, 00:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Persuasion is only effective on people who have an open mind and willing to forget pre-conceived notions. Once you accept you can't persuade creationists all that is left is to have fun insulting and ridiculing them.

While I would have liked to take issue with this sort of mind set, sadly it is true. Creationists cannot be convinced by any use of logic or facts. "Creationists take heed" was obviously spoken in jest since of course they will not take any heeds.

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 01:07

Creationists NEVER take note. They've had the notes for 1000s of years and they're not about to ditch them for a new set.

GePap · May 10, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Three points - one, the Universe is BY DEFINITION a closed system, because the Universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Thus there can be nothing outside the Universe, for it would not exist.

By which definiton is the Universe all point, everything? I have never heard this. As for there being nothing outside of it: well, that just brings out the problem of what the universe is expanding in. If you could tarvel in such a way as to meet up with the primordial particles of light that have been travelling since the Big Bang (or to put it another way, the edge of the universe), what is there, ahead? Nothing, nothingness, pure and simple? Well, as you ask, how could nothingness exist? But then that also brings up the tricky problem of origins..I mean, can everything just pop out of nothingness?

This si why the start of the universe holds little interest for me..too many phylosophical questions with no answers.

BustaMike · May 10, 2003, 02:15

Good point. I would agree that the Universe by definition is not a closed system because it has no known bounds. How can something infinite be closed?

Cruddy · May 10, 2003, 03:26

A circle has an infinite number of points on it's circumferene, yet that is closed.

Suggest you try reading "Fractals Everywhere" by Miichael Barnsley. It won't tell you what shape the universe is, but you'll have a few ideas for modelling it.

Universe = set of all things in relation to one another.

Multiverse = set of all things in all possible states.

BustaMike · May 10, 2003, 04:16

Quote:

A circle has an infinite number of points on it's circumferene, yet that is closed.

Not quite accurate as it pertains to this topic. As I said before, when systems start to get to very small levels, they fail to be smooth and start to get quantifiable. If a circle reference is to be relevant, it must adhere to this same principle... therefor, it does not have an infinite number of points to it.

And regardless of that, a circle has set boundaries. The universe doesn't. Your example is well... cruddy.