Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2012, 04:23 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(30-08-2012 04:15 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 04:08 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  At either rate it follows that life and evolution do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, nor does it violate entropy.

And that is a bonafide, stupid claim.

if is like repeating john 3:16 to a whole other group of complacent idiots.

Open a thread, and state the 1st and second law.

When you read the first law, notice a term 'conserved', then read the second and find the the first makes the second 'moot'.

Reason: what caused both the potential difference and then was causes the change of state (reduction).

the 2nd imposes a direction, with ZERO reason, evidence or cause. Just the acceptance of morons that havent realized how stupid it is.

Are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics are inherently wrong and contradictory?

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
30-08-2012, 04:26 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(30-08-2012 04:06 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 03:50 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Heat is entropy.
from the steam engine era.

I lol'd. Big Grin

Why you so grouchy, anyway? I figured you meant electromagnetic. Makes me wonder if you're one of those "electric cosmos" kinda guys. It's an interesting tale, but it ain't quite it.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
30-08-2012, 05:22 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(30-08-2012 04:12 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 04:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  Well, I'll stay with this definition until someone clearly and logically explains an alternative, backed up with evidence. Haven't seen that.

what evidence is greater than YOU witnessing for own dam self?

Do you actually believe that the existing paradigm is correct?

Which paradigm of what?

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
30-08-2012, 11:40 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(30-08-2012 04:06 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(30-08-2012 03:50 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Heat is entropy.
from the steam engine era.


This is our generation. For example:

Quote: And what's this em shit?
electromagnetic (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes), some call it light (hugenormous (technical term) spectrum).

'fields' of ALL charge are em (all cases)

what do you think is causing the motion, magic?


Quote:What does typography have to do with physics?

Try, applying what YOU can do in nature, to be of natures capacity.

For example: if you were an electric circuit of potential difference, a magnet could be used to stop your heart, brain, nervous system, etc. ie... to apply YOURSelf to the comprehension of nature, you will find, you aint living on 'hot' nor potential difference, like loaded springs.

the use of WORDS is how knowledge evolves (that maybe a bit to technical for a steam engine kind of guy)

"WE" put mass on the moon, with the use of WORDS.

Rocks dont do that, but its a capability, within nature, either way!

This is how I respond to the insane things you say. After I get it all out I'm able to re-approach you rationally.



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
31-08-2012, 06:23 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
I guess we are just ignoring my last 2 posts then?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2012, 09:16 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(28-08-2012 09:23 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 09:07 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  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.

There you go again. You cite this paper as if it is some sort of appeal to authority, but you cannot explain what you find the great import of his paper to be.

Quote:thx, as it's purdy simple to comprehend how a microwave works.

ie.... the 'wavelengths' impose the energy upon the mass. Mass, didnt change, just the state.

Do you mean to use the word 'state' to refer to the energy level? Or are you talking about some other 'state' of mass?


Quote:Speed is not a force of nature!

I agree. Speed is not a force. Who said it was? Kinetic Energy is not a force--it is an energy. Who says otherwise?



Quote:the stupidity of the current paradigm is that energy is defined as a potential difference (speed) between points, when the energy of the structure is the em, in one form or another (all cases).

You're back to your 'everything is EM' idea, but with nothing to back up that claim. You don't recognize potential energy or kinetic energy as valid concepts? Are you also saying the work-energy theorem is wrong? Because if you are, you are basically saying Newton's Second Law is wrong.

Whether we use the Bohr model with its classic mechanical methods, or the quantum mechanic model, we use both the concepts of potential and kinetic energy to accurately describe the energy levels of electronic states. The Bohr model is useful for explaining simple hydrogenic atoms, and the QM model explains in great detail and with extraordinary accuracy the spectrum levels we see in all sorts of multi-electron atoms. The QM model accurately describes the hyperfine structure of spectra. Explaining and reliably predicting physical phenomena are the hallmarks of successful theories.

What exactly does your model predict? What are the mathematical relationships relevant to your model? What physical phenomena does your "EM is the only thing" model explain? If you cannot tell us, and you cannot write out equations which make specific predictions and calculations, then what you are talking about isn't even science.

Quote:like i said from day one; em is the cause of 'heat'

ALL CASES.

A method to observe that is to compare 2 pieces of iron. 1 hot, 1 not

The difference, aint added 'speed', but em!

Whether the modes of motion are vibrational, rotational, or translational, they are ALL forms of kinetic energy.

And yes, the average speeds of the molecules of hot iron is more than that of cold iron. Are you really mixing up speed with velocity? Yes, a hot piece of iron sitting next to a cold one, both at rest, with have an average molecular velocity of zero. Average speed squared will be proportional to the temperature.

Quote:When you read the first law, notice a term 'conserved', then read the second and find the the first makes the second 'moot'.

Reason: what caused both the potential difference and then was causes the change of state (reduction).

the 2nd imposes a direction, with ZERO reason, evidence or cause. Just the acceptance of morons that havent realized how stupid it is.

You suggest the first and second laws of thermodynamics are not consistent with each other. That's just not true.

First, Temperature is not the same thing as heat (just clarifying some misuse of terms upthread). Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy, specifically the kinetic energy of the individual particles in matter. Brownian motion is observed as a phenomena of motion of particle due to temperature, and direct measurements of velocities of atoms have been done to measure temperatures. You don't seem to like the idea of actual motion going on, but it is and we can measure it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature...emperature

Heat is the transfer of thermal energy through such means as conduction, convection, and radiation. It is not thermal energy itself.


So now onto the Second Law. Statistical mechanics does not require the Second Law as a postulate--only that a system in equilibrium has equal probability to find the system in all accessible states. The postulate of equal probability of microstates in statistical mechanics leads directly to the consequence that entropy of an isolated system will increase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-theorem
The First Law then is not really required to justify the Second Law. By assuming conservation of energy, however, we can readily show that entropy of a closed system is always increasing. So the first law very much is consistent with the second.

Regardless of whether you disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics (an extraordinary claim that requires justification) , there is an independent line of reasoning for the Second Law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BryanS's post
03-09-2012, 09:36 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
To argue that Evolution breaches the second law of thermodynamics is to argue that life breaches the second law. Evolution is a change of life through successive generations, but the rate of increase of order involved is nothing compared to the rate of increase of order of an individual over its lifetime. From zygote to adult the individual becomes more regular and organised, and if we look we'll find the entropy has decreased.

My cells organise matter into me. As a system my body's entropy is likely to fall from at least the time I am conceived to the time I finish growing. After that perhaps we see a slow increase. Nevertheless the decrease in entropy is simple to account for. My body is not a closed system, and in order to reduce its entropy accepts low entropy food stocks in one end and dumps out high entropy waste products from the other end.

As a system the world is absorbing low entropy energy from the sun, and radiating high entropy energy back out into space. On the surface of the earth some of that low entropy energy is used to fuel life, and only the tiniest portion of it is used to drive the process of evolution.

Fundamentally the thermodynamics argument doesn't work because instead of arguing that evolution can't happen, you end up arguing that life can't happen. Life does happen so the argument is invalid. Either the law is wrong (there's no reason to think it is wrong in this case) or your understanding of the law and the open and closed systems involved is wrong. If life can happen, then from the perspective of thermodynamics a little evolution along the way is child's play.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
04-09-2012, 08:06 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(01-09-2012 09:16 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 09:23 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Pl...-1901.html

i know ive posted it here, but just so people can read FOR THEMSELVES.

There you go again. You cite this paper as if it is some sort of appeal to authority, but you cannot explain what you find the great import of his paper to be.

the argument is combining entropy into the comprehension of energy.

Planck, created the direction of energy distribution. It is what the paper is about.

It is the foundation to the whole paradigm of how energy is calculated within today's physics

Quote:Do you mean to use the word 'state' to refer to the energy level?
yes....

same as they do with polaritons or even on a box of chereo's (calorie).

Quote:Or are you talking about some other 'state' of mass?
nope.

Just the 'energy upon' that mass.


Quote:"Speed is not a force of nature!

I agree. Speed is not a force. Who said it was? Kinetic Energy is not a force--it is an energy. Who says otherwise?


in 'walking the planck' (the qubit) is the 'energy' (based on f and 'c', which is incorrect)



Quote:You're back to your 'everything is EM' idea, but with nothing to back up that claim.

sorry.

read the section of the forum, it's all about em and how the scientific community is evolution with the comprehension. You just aint!

Quote:Whether we use the Bohr model with its classic mechanical methods,

like having a PHOTON as the cause to any increase of energy to any electron (energy upon mass)?


or do you even comprehend how or what 'energy upon mass' is?
Quote:Regardless of whether you disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics (an extraordinary claim that requires justification) , there is an independent line of reasoning for the Second Law.

what is that?

"lu-cy, you got sum es'planing to do"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2012, 09:20 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Bishadi, what's your first language?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Phaedrus's post
13-11-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(14-08-2012 01:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Too bad you are such a fucking idiot you don't even know that abiogenesis has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Are you as old as your articles ? Maybe you need a Alzheimer evaluation, old Pahu. And when you're out at the doctor, stop by the library, and check out "Science 101", and review the steps of the method, and then come back and tell us what your null hypothesis was, and what your test was, and what data you have. Life is short. Some idiocy, is not worth more than 5 seconds of intelligent people's time, which is why I keep this shit ready for the Silly Willy posts.

TTFN



I find this post amazingly hilarious, in the sense that one supports evolution without creation, but insists that Evolution doesn't require Abiogenesis... Who is the fucking idiot here? Your religion has holes in it. Just like every other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: