Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2012, 03:21 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 01:25 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  i aint even going to comment on the closed system.

Are you done with your petty charade? Good.

Do you even know the laws of thermodynamics?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 05:04 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Bishadi from your posts, not just in this thread but others too. It is clear that you have read up on biology. But have completely misunderstood it.

Comparing a flame to life?? you can't be serious. A flame cant reproduce, it has no metabolic activity. it cant respond to stimuli (there's more). None of the things that would be considered for life.

You keep calling members here idiots. But your knowledge of science is piss poor id be surprised if you could pass any high school science class, Even at the lowest level.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like FSM_scot's post
27-08-2012, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2012 05:31 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Bishadi has to be a trolololo.
But I'm interested in addressing the arguments posted.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 05:26 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Bishadi has to be a trolololo.
But I'm interested in addressing the arguments posted.

He must be a troll. Its not possible to be that well read on science and still be totally ignorant to even school level biology.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
27-08-2012, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2012 05:56 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 01:25 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  fricken hilarious.

You question was basic common sense; the community already knows that biology and entopy have contradicted, since day one.

You are on a thread, about evolution and have no idea, the reason evolution is not understood to the absolute of science, is because the current models conflict, and always have.

You basically, just made yourself look about as stupid as a person, talking science on life, could.

go lay by your dish!



i aint even going to comment on the closed system.


Entropy is NOT Disorder

As an aid for conceptualizing entropy, it is often described as a measurement of disorder. This is not intended as a definition of either entropy or disorder. Entropy is determined by the number of ways you could achieve a state, disorder is defined by the amount of violation of an ordering rule. The assignment "entropy is disorder" is intended to describe situations such as "the more space a gas takes up, the higher its entropy is, and the less you know about where all the molecules are (which in a casual sense means more disorder)". This conceptual link between entropy and disorder should not be interpreted as saying that increased disorder is increased entropy. An example of how entropy isn't disorder is that if you take a piece of glass, which is an amorphous material (one whose atoms are disordered), and place it in a fridge to cool it down, you will not change the atom locations. The glass remains just as disordered, but its entropy decreases as its temperature drops. In fact, in a very good fridge, the closer you brought it to absolute zero (-273.15 C or -459.67 F) to closer its entropy would become to zero. This would all happen without changing its structural disorder.

Entropy and Life

To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.

To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news... I'm sure I would have heard of it.
Doug Craigen, PhD (physics) revision 1.02, Oct. 29, 1996

Note: Since I haven't heard that insult used above I provided a link.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
28-08-2012, 07:29 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 05:04 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Bishadi from your posts, not just in this thread but others too. It is clear that you have read up on biology. But have completely misunderstood it.

Comparing a flame to life?? you can't be serious. A flame cant reproduce, it has no metabolic activity. it cant respond to stimuli (there's more). None of the things that would be considered for life.

but the process, at the molecular level, aint as different as you think.

Here is something to assist..

http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm


Quote:You keep calling members here idiots.

Your last claim on the flame, was not me being an idiot!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 07:37 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(27-08-2012 05:44 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 01:25 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  fricken hilarious.

You question was basic common sense; the community already knows that biology and entopy have contradicted, since day one.

You are on a thread, about evolution and have no idea, the reason evolution is not understood to the absolute of science, is because the current models conflict, and always have.

You basically, just made yourself look about as stupid as a person, talking science on life, could.

go lay by your dish!



i aint even going to comment on the closed system.


Entropy is NOT Disorder



can you imagine such a thing?

i mean, what idiot would right such... entropy-disorder....... What a moron, eh?

CALCULATIONS OF THE ENTROPY OF A RESONATOR AS A FUNCTION OF ITS ENERGY

§1. Entropy depends on disorder and this disorder,
according to the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator when situated in a permanent stationary radiation field, depends on the irregularity with which it constantly changes its amplitude and phase, provided one considers time intervals large compared to the time of one vibration but small compared to the duration of a measurement. If amplitude and phase both remained absolutely constant, which means completely homogeneous vibrations, no entropy could exist and the vibrational energy would have to be completely free to be converted into work



Who could put such crap in a paper?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 08:25 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(28-08-2012 07:37 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(27-08-2012 05:44 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Entropy is NOT Disorder



can you imagine such a thing?

i mean, what idiot would right such... entropy-disorder....... What a moron, eh?

CALCULATIONS OF THE ENTROPY OF A RESONATOR AS A FUNCTION OF ITS ENERGY

§1. Entropy depends on disorder and this disorder,
according to the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator when situated in a permanent stationary radiation field, depends on the irregularity with which it constantly changes its amplitude and phase, provided one considers time intervals large compared to the time of one vibration but small compared to the duration of a measurement. If amplitude and phase both remained absolutely constant, which means completely homogeneous vibrations, no entropy could exist and the vibrational energy would have to be completely free to be converted into work



Who could put such crap in a paper?

Who indeed? In what paper?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 09:07 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(28-08-2012 08:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 07:37 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  can you imagine such a thing?

i mean, what idiot would right such... entropy-disorder....... What a moron, eh?

CALCULATIONS OF THE ENTROPY OF A RESONATOR AS A FUNCTION OF ITS ENERGY

§1. Entropy depends on disorder and this disorder,
according to the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator when situated in a permanent stationary radiation field, depends on the irregularity with which it constantly changes its amplitude and phase, provided one considers time intervals large compared to the time of one vibration but small compared to the duration of a measurement. If amplitude and phase both remained absolutely constant, which means completely homogeneous vibrations, no entropy could exist and the vibrational energy would have to be completely free to be converted into work



Who could put such crap in a paper?

Who indeed? In what paper?

max planck (distribution of energy)

Apparently you dont read!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 09:23 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(28-08-2012 09:07 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 08:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  Who indeed? In what paper?

max planck (distribution of energy)

Apparently you dont read!

http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Pl...-1901.html

i know ive posted it here, but just so people can read FOR THEMSELVES.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: