Errors in Science!

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur.

Better stick with what you know rather than arguing with someone elses arguments.

The 2nd law says nothing of the sort, as has been posted repeatedly!

THERMO = HEAT

DYNAMICS = CHANGE

It's most commonly stated as: "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

I'm not an "evolutionist" however those that would argue the matter (and even those of us that understand just a bit about it), would say that energy does enter our worlds eco-system.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]Deacon

A Cardiology Nurse is an expert on the Second Law????????????

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
Either the universe arose out of the big bang or from God himself. You can't have both. Which is it?

But you can. God saying "Let there be light" could have created an expanding universe ex nihilo as evidenced by the red shift data from the light observed from the stars.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Either the universe arose out of the big bang or from God himself. You can't have both. Which is it?

But you can. God saying "Let there be light" could have created an expanding universe ex nihilo as evidenced by the red shift data from the light observed from the stars. </font>[/QUOTE]Creation ex nihilo is not the same as the Big Bang Theory! Creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. The Big Bang Theory is that a speck of infinite mass exploded in some fashion.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Creation ex nihilo is not the same as the Big Bang Theory! Creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. The Big Bang Theory is that a speck of infinite mass exploded in some fashion.

The parallels are quite striking aren't they.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
A Cardiology Nurse is an expert on the Second Law????????????

It's quite revealing that you denigrate Charles Meadows on page four of this thread for his educational superiority and then me for my humble education.

I never claimed to be an expert. Many years ago I studied Physics and Chemistry in college.
I know enough to follow the simple topic here and comment.

While I'm no engineer I can understand that to advance to a higher state of complexity requires the addition of energy. The earth is not a closed system.

Rob

[ May 27, 2005, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

[TexasSky]

For all of you evolutionists - If it is really so easy for life to start and evolve into what it is today that it could have happened by chance from chaos, and if you really know so much about HOW it happened - why can't you reproduce it today just as easily?

Why does it take stem cells, millions of dollars worth of lab equipment, very sensitive timing and manipulation to even come CLOSE to it today if an unintelligent, know-nothing, cosmic "spill" did it the first time?

Why can't you, with all you scientists know, as opposed to the ignorance of all of us who go "hogwash" take a cat and make a dog?

 

[Deacon]

Ahhh, but there's the rub....

As Christians we've got God's design in the mix!

Rob

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
For all of you evolutionists - If it is really so easy for life to start and evolve into what it is today that it could have happened by chance from chaos, and if you really know so much about HOW it happened

Evolution is not easy, it is not chance and the extent to which it explains the development of species in the past is theoretical.

Originally posted by TexasSky:
- why can't you reproduce it today just as easily?

Two major limitations of reproducing evolutionary change in a laboratory.

1) Time. While we have successfully studied evolutionary change in plants and animals with short reproductive cycles in controlled environments, this is much more difficult in plants and animals with longer lifespans. It would require the cooperation of thousands of generations of humans to perform a successful study that mimics what happens in nature.

2) The environment. While we can mimic some environmental pressures found in nature in a controlled laboratory setting, natural environments have many more factors to them.

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Why does it take stem cells, millions of dollars worth of lab equipment, very sensitive timing and manipulation to even come CLOSE to it today if an unintelligent, know-nothing, cosmic "spill" did it the first time?

I don't believe stem cells have anything to do with researching evolution. It sounds like you are talking about abiogenesis theory, which is completely independent of evolution.

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Why can't you, with all you scientists know, as opposed to the ignorance of all of us who go "hogwash" take a cat and make a dog?

I'm not sure why someone would try to do that since that isn't what happens in evolution.

[ May 27, 2005, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[TexasSky]

Just for the skeptics:

The following are a FEW scientists who teach that God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Duane Gish, Ph.D., Biochemistry.
His B.S. in Chemistry is from UCLA.
His Ph.D. in Biochemistry is from UC-Berkeley.
He spent 18 years working at Cornell University Medical School in the field of research, he also worked at the Virus Lab at Berkley, and for Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company. He has published over 40 articles in scientific journals.

Ken Cumming, Ph.D., Biology
His has a BS in Biology/Chemistry, and graduated with honors from Tufts University.
He has a Master's of Biology from Harvard.
He has a Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard.
He was on the faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Virginia Tech, the Univ of Wisconsin at La Cross, and Western Wisconsin Technological Institute at La Cross. He supervised five doctoral dissertations, 25 master's thesis on a range of biological topics. He spent 19 years with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Patricia Lynnea Gathman Nason, Ph.D.
Chairman of the Department of Science Education for the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School.

David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience.
BS in biochemistry from Michigan State.
PHD in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve Univ, School of Medicine.
Member of Society for Neuroscience
Member Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology specializing in Parasitology. Ba in Biology from Wester State College in Colorado, MA in Zoology from the University of Northern Colorado. He discovered a new species of parasite, a nematoid of the family Acuraildae. His work is published in the Journal of Parasitology. He has taught Human Physiology & Anatomy, Medical Microbiology, Parasitology, General Biology I & II, and Cell Biology at Pensacola Chrisitian College. He is a member of the American Society of Parasitologists and the Helminthological Society of Washington.

Todd C. Wood, Ph.D.,Biochemistry/Genomics
He received highest honors when he earned his B.S. in Biology from Liberty University. His Ph.D. in Biochemistry is from the University of Virginia. He has a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Genomics from Clemson University. He served as a Research Assistant Professor and Director of Bioinformatics at Clemson. He has published articles in The American Journal of Human Genetics, Science, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, and Genome Research. The article topics include biochemistry, genetics, and genomics. He is a member of the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, and the Society for Systematic Biology.

Robert Franks, MD
BA in Zoology (Magna Cum Laude) from San Diego State Univ.
MD from UCLA.
GP for 40 years in San Diego.
Teaching Introduction to Clinical Medicine at UCSD.

Robert Eckel, MD
BS in Baceteriology from Univ. of Cincinnati.
MD from Univ of Cincinnati College of Medicine.
Authored 120 papers, presented 160 abstracts, won 60 research awards, reviewer for 60 journals including the American Journal of Medicine (he is on the editorial board. Professor of Medicine at the Univ of Colorado HSC in Denver.

Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal and Molecular Genetics
B.S. in Agronomy and Animal Production
Ph.D. in Animal and Molecular Genetis from the Federal Institute of Tehcnology in Zurich, Switzerland.

Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology. BS and MS in Zoology from Tulane Univ. Traineeship in Cell Biology at Harvard. Ph.D. in Biology from Rice University. Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Medical Pathology from the Tulane Univ School of Medicine.

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering
BS from Rice with honors in Civil engineering.
MS and PHD from Univ of Minn.

John Morris, Ph.D., Geological Engineering
BS in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Insti.
MS and PHD in Geological Engineering from Univ of OK.

Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
BS in Physics from U of Missouri at Rolla,
BS in Meterology from St. Louis Univ.
MD and PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State Univ.
Member American Meterological Society.

John Baumgardern, Ph.D. Geophyics and Space Physics
B.S. in Elec Engineering from Texas Tech Univ.
MS in Electrical Engineering from Princeton Univ.
MS and PHD in Geophysics and Space Phyics from UCLA. He served as a staff scienctists in the Fluid Dynamics Group of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. He is famous for the development of the TERRA code, as the basis for a new operational global weather forecast model known a GME that is now used in Germany and ten other countries.

Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics
BS in Physics from Duke Univ.
Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State Univ.
He received a US Patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine's IR-100 awards. He has worked for the Sandia National Lab since 1979 in Nuclear Physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, the the Particle Beam Fusion Project. He was co-inventor of special laser-triggered "rimfire" high-voltage switches. He has received an Award of Excellence for his work on the light ion-fusion target theory.

Next post will just list a few names of these "idiotic" "clueless" scientists who support Creation.

 

[TexasSky]

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (Sydney Aust)
Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology (U.S.)
Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy (US)
Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics (US)
Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics (US)
John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics (US)
Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry (US)
Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Comubustion Theory (Wales)
Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology (USSR)
Tom McMullen, Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Science (US)
Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. Geology (Palentology)(US)
David P. Livingston, Jr., Ph.D. Archaeology and Ancient History (US)
Paul Ackerman, Ph.D. Psychology (US)
Keith Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics, (US)
Edmond W. Holroyd III, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (US)
Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. Chemistry (US)
Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (Puerto Rico)
Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc., Chemical Engineering (US)

Robert Hermann, Ph.D. Mathematics (US)
Otto E. Berg, BA Physics/Chemistry (US)
Jerry Simmons, Ph.D. Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education (Science Training Emphasis) (US)
David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology (US)
Les Bruce, Ph.D., Linguistics (US)
Joachim Scheven, Ph.D. (Zoologist/Palaeontologist) Munich
David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (US)
Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. (US)
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology (US)
Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology (US)
Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology (Australia)
Andre Eggen, Ph.D., Animal Molecular Genetics (Zurich)
Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology (Bulgaria)
Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology (Stellenbosch and Cape Town)
John K.G. Karmer, Ph.D. Biochemistry (US)
Benjamin Aaron, M.D. (US)
Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Med (US)
John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (US)
Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (US)
Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Ed (US)
Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology (US)
Roger W. Sanders, Ph.D. Botony (US)
Arther J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology (US)
Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D., Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology (US)
Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences (US)
Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry (US)
Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology (US)
David Demick, M.D., (US)
Randy Guliuzza, M.D. (US)
Keith Swenson, MD (US)
George Howe, Ph.D. Botany (US)
David Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy (US)
Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry (US)
Richard Oliver, Ph.D. Biology (US)
Inis J. Bardella, M.D. (US)
Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M., US
Donald Hamann, Ph.D, Agricultural Science (US)

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Deacon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
A Cardiology Nurse is an expert on the Second Law????????????

It's quite revealing that you denigrate Charles Meadows on page four of this thread for his educational superiority and then me for my humble education.

I never claimed to be an expert. Many years ago I studied Physics and Chemistry in college.
I know enough to follow the simple topic here and comment.

While I'm no engineer I can understand that to advance to a higher state of complexity requires the addition of energy. The earth is not a closed system.

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]You are mistaken when you state that I denigrated Charles Meadows superior education. I questioned the assumption of superiority by he and Craigbythesea. For your edification I present my initial post on the Second Law. Please read these experts carefully.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law. I will repeat some statements on the Second Law by noted scientists for your edification.

Rudolph Clausius, who developed the concept of Entropy, used the universe as his model when he drew the conclusions "the energy of the Universe is a constant, the Entropy of the Universe tends toward a maximum" [A Brief History of Eternity by Roy E. Peacock]. Thermodynamist Peacock notes [page 69]: "It is this pronouncement "the Entropy of the Universe tends to a maximum', that is of vital importance. In making it Clausius did not refer to individual processes taking place in the universe, neither did he consider different theories of its creation, evolution, and direction. He didn't need to. All that was necessary for his statement to hold true was that all processes should be irreversible.

Peacock also quotes [page 75] Sir Arthur Eddington, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge: "The law that entropy always increases - The Second Law of Thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observations - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope: there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News [July 7, 1980], writes: "There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the second Law applies equally well to open systems. . . There is somehow associated with the field of far from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the Second law of Thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

Thermodymanicist Arnold Sommerfeld author of Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics [Academic Press, 1955] writes [page 155]: "The statement in integral form, namely that entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form, which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not."

 

[Gold Dragon]

OldRegular, all of the quotes about the 2nd Law you cited are true and accurate.

Your application of the 2nd Law presented in your words below is not.

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News [July 7, 1980], writes: "There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the second Law applies equally well to open systems. . .

Curiously, all the creationist sources that quote this stop here. I would like to read what he went on to say about the application of the 2nd Law to open systems.

 

[Paul33]

Just because the Big Bang Theory is misapplied in school text books doesn't mean that it isn't in agreement with the Bible.

Naturalists believe that the Big Bang is the cause of all things natural. It doesn't address the supernatural as you have already stated.

Therefore God in speaking the universe into existence caused a Big Bang! Hoyle admits as much and recoiled against the idea.

You can have both. God caused the universe to exist. The Big Bang is merely a description of what God did.

Your statement proves why philosophical materialistic assumptions have no place in true science.

 

[Paul33]

BTW, until the late 19th century, theology was considered to be the "queen of the sciences."

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Either the universe arose out of the big bang or from God himself. You can't have both. Which is it?

But you can. God saying "Let there be light" could have created an expanding universe ex nihilo as evidenced by the red shift data from the light observed from the stars. </font>[/QUOTE]Creation ex nihilo is not the same as the Big Bang Theory! Creation ex nihilo means creation from nothing. The Big Bang Theory is that a speck of infinite mass exploded in some fashion. </font>[/QUOTE]A speck of infinte density mass is NOTHING!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Here is a decent article from a Creation Science source that does an ok job of explaining the Open/Closed system issue with the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics from an Intelligent Design perspective.

True Origins : Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

...

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

...

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this article is still full of scientific misunderstandings, at least they are willing to admit that open systems allow for entropy to decrease when energy is put into the system.

 

[TexasSky]

You said: Harvard scientist John Ross,.. said Creationists were wrong.

I posted the names of some highly respecrted scientists, including some Ph.D.'s from Harvard and Princeton, who say the Creationists are right.

Why do you give more weight to Ross than to the ones who disagree with Ross?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
You said: Harvard scientist John Ross,.. said Creationists were wrong.

I posted the names of some highly respecrted scientists, including some Ph.D.'s from Harvard and Princeton, who say the Creationists are right.

Why do you give more weight to Ross than to the ones who disagree with Ross?

Who are you talking to? There are no quotes in this thread about John Ross saying Creationists are wrong or anyone giving more weight to his words than others. It was OldRegular who quoted John Ross while I was curious how the quote continued.

Maybe you are confusing John Ross with Hugh Ross.

 

[TexasSky]

DHK - You said "I'm not sure why someone would try to do that since that isn't what happens in evolution." In response to my question about why you can't develop a cat from a dog.

That is, however, what evolution would require in the long run. If ONE pool of matter exploded, forming the basics for life, and that "basic" DNA chain evolved into all of the various life forms on earth, it would HAVE to split off into other species.