|
|
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Prick a pipe through Earth's surface and oil bleeds out, kind of like draining pus from a blister. New pus forms over geologic time scales, but unlike blister pus NOT in the same cavity. |
||||||||
|
Mental Gymnastics Looking closer to this premise does not support such as notion. answersingenesis.org |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 31-Mar-18, 22:48 |
Nonsense "However, evolutionists generally have failed to produce a reasonable argument which agrees with observation that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution." Why would the Second Law prohibit evolution? That's absolute nonsense and I am surprised that it is brought up over and over again despite having been rebutted eons ago. This is in the same category as the previous belief by IHS that Sandy Hook was a hoax. |
||||||||
|
Stalhandske is Right |
||||||||
|
AIG ...in a closed system. "One approach is to note that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings." So far, so good. Ah, the author appeals to hand waving. Granted, we know not how life first formed. What we do know is that it formed early on in Earth's history, more than three billion years ago, and remained in microscopic form the first few billion years. We know the first multicellular organisms were marine flora and fauna of exotic forms virtually none of which are found today. If we continue laying out what we have discovered, it lays out very much as we would expect an evolutionary process to unfold, and very UNLIKE the sudden appearance of forms entirely unrelated to anything previously seen before as one would expect for fiat creation ex nihilo. |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Apr-18, 04:27 |
IHS However, modern science can exclude several scenarios that are (in my opinion somewhat stupidly) still maintained by some factions of religion (factions of Christianity, for example). One of them concerns evolution of life on Earth. I'd like to remind IHS that to my understanding even the Pope accepts modern evolution. And you do not? |
||||||||
|
stalhandske. . . "However, evolutionists generally have failed to produce a reasonable argument which agrees with observation that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution." Why would the Second Law prohibit evolution? That's absolute nonsense and I am surprised that it is brought up over and over again despite having been rebutted eons ago. >> You asked two questions here: “Why would the Second Law prohibit evolution?” Basically, it has to do with “entropy”. Do you understand this second Law's premise? That matter, naturally left to its own devices, will over time scatter, and decay and fall apart. This premise/ law means that taking a wrist watch and putting it into a blender over an eternal length of time will not ever mean that the parts will somehow come together and make a wrist watch again. Life (aka the cosmos) does does not work that way. The link I provided explains the incredible sequence of events that evolutionists use to explain how, witht the help of the energy from the sun, that that blender will be able – given enough time – to produce life. Actually, you asked only one question and made this statement: “That's absolute nonsense and I am surprised that it is brought up over and over again despite having been rebutted eons ago.” It has been “rebutted” with mental gymnastics! And you made this statement: “This is in the same category as the previous belief by IHS that Sandy Hook was a hoax.” Which is of course placed here to bring my intelligence into question, but which has no bearing on the subject at hand, now, does it? Then before I could address these assertions and question you post this: << I may have said this before to IHS, but I say it again: Science has no proof against a God as a Creator, and also has no particular wish or obligation to provide such proof. >> What does my premise of believing in God have to do with “Black Holes”? How does my faith, but more to the point, how does my reasoning against the generally accepted premises of modern science lead you to bring it up here. Let's keep on the subject, please? << I'd like to remind IHS that to my understanding even the Pope accepts modern evolution. And you do not? >> This fact, IMHO, means only that the Pope does not have a very good grasp on the Christian faith. That's all that means. |
||||||||
|
The Pope Has an Excellent Grasp But setting that aside, what does your blender represent, entropy? No one claims you can put a watch in a blender and eventually get it restored to working condition. The universe doesn't work that way. However, take a look at salt. NaCl. In the right circumstances, it crystallizes. Molecules arranging themselves into regular patterns. Why does this happen? How is this not a violation of entropy, as you understand it? The reason is because it isn't. There is still greater disorder overall, even though simple chemical processes produce greater order in the local environment of the salt crystal. Snow flakes are an even better example--water crystallizing into beautiful ordered patterns. |
||||||||
|
and the Cosmos |
||||||||
|
Seriously If Stars did not blow up and die, we would not be here. Life from Death?. |
||||||||
|
The Hard Way, If << Considering the theoretical age of the Universe, 13-billion years (as some would 'speculate') we have a long way to travel yet. >> To what end, what are your choice? youtu.be |
||||||||
|
Separating Myth from Facts. The Heikegani The Facts;www.youtube.com The two are inseparable. One, a Song song by a Heart..the other a symphony performed by a Brain. Get the two working together=Survival.Tear them apart=Extinction. |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Apr-18, 21:51 |
Good gracious! I seriously wish you would not discuss a matter that you obviously don't understand. Instead, you should have read the brief and concise follow-up above written by L_S. There is nothing in the Second Law that prohibits a "subsystem" from decreasing in entropy, which is what obviously happens - for example - here on Earth. One example being the conception and birth of a human being. That local phenomenon is later reversed by the death of that individual and a corresponding increase in entropy when the parts of the individual decay back into simple degradation products. The point is that the overall entropy of a system can never decrease, so when such decreases occur locally they are paid for by an entropy increase in the whole system. <<“This is in the same category as the previous belief by IHS that Sandy Hook was a hoax.”>> <Which is of course placed here to bring my intelligence into question, but which has no bearing on the subject at hand, now, does it?> Well, it has bearing on this subject insofar as here, again, we have the same person arguing for something he really does not understand. Just out of blind belief, and having been lured by others. <This fact, IMHO, means only that the Pope does not have a very good grasp on the Christian faith.> Wheeev, will remain my only comment on that. What self-confidence |
||||||||
|
Stahl |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Apr-18, 22:25 |
BC |
||||||||
|
OK |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Apr-18, 22:33 |
|
||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Apr-18, 22:55 |
as to the Heikegani crab.... Carl Sagan's explanation makes good sense, but I think it could also just be a coincidence. |
||||||||
|
Anyway. |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Apr-18, 03:23 |
|
||||||||
|
II LoT The birth and growth of any organism to adulthood is an entropic reversal for that organism, again at the expense of the greater surrounding environment. It is a perfectly decent example, but IHS argues the life force itself undermines it. There is something mysterious about life we do not understand. Look at a plant. Stress it, by withholding water, and you can kill it. Hard to say, for a plant, precisely where that dividing line is. When it turns brown and whithers, it can sometimes still be nursed back to health. Seeds themselves are tiny bundles of miraculous. These can sit on a shelf for months or years, static and unchanging. Is the seed alive or dead? We can only tell by planting it. If it fails to sprout, it might not have been viable. There are a wide variety of reasons beyond non viability a seed might not sprout. But if it does, it is imbued with the life "force." For animals life and death are easier to distinguish. Interruption of various physiological functions can stop overall working. For humans, oxygen deprivation results in death in three to five minutes, though in special circumstances individuals deprived up to twenty minutes have been revived with little ill effect. Usually brain death begins after five minutes, and revival does not repair loss. More than half the people given CPR fail to recover. Which reminds me, Rick Santorum says children would be better served learning CPR in the event their classmates are gunned down, instead of protesting in favor of more reasonable gun restrictions. Because CPR is the preferred treatment for stopping rapid blood loss from gun shot wounds, or restoring brain splattered out a shattered skull. Maybe thoughts and prayers, delivered rapidly enough, would restore life and vitality to those gradually cooling bodies. Rigor mortis is entropy, IHS. <<The point is that the overall entropy of a system can never decrease, so when such decreases occur locally they are paid for by an entropy increase in the whole system.>> Beautifully said. |
||||||||
|
Not sure I agree with you statement about "the life force itself undermines it". I said this? I do not recall. Certainly, however, I agree with there being something mysterious about life, which is not understood. Especially the aspect of life we call consciousness. As I understand it consciousness is the very essence of what makes us human. Completely separated and unique among living organisms. Especially insofar as we are able to empathize with other humans, but I assert with our Creator as well. This empathy or ability to connect with "God", however we perceive the Creator is a universal and innate, almost desperate hunger or longing for many people. The bewildering and desperate struggle for many now, is trying to reconcile their spiritual lives in the world which is directly increasingly antagonistic to this spiritual aspect of humanity. Where this social dynamic leads, maybe only the Creator knows. |
||||||||
|
stalhanske. . . Easter in Academia Easter in Academia Lock atheist philosophers who do not specialize in religion in a room with theist philosophers who do specialize in religion (well, don’t really, but if you did), and if you listened to the ensuing debates, you “would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate.”(1) Those are not my words but the words of an atheist. And not just any atheist, an atheist who is a respected professional philosopher with 12 books and over 140 articles to his name. Despite his atheism, Quentin Smith draws the theism-friendly conclusion that “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”(2) God is alive. And not only in philosophy, but in sociology as well. Fifty years ago sociology was convinced that God was on the way out. The scholars had bought into secularization theory; you know the idea: The more modern and technological the world becomes, the more secular it becomes. Peter Berger was one of the leading proponents of this theory. Today he has completely abandoned it. At an academic conference in Miami in 2011, Berger said that he and almost everyone in the field changed their minds simply because that is what the evidence demanded. He said that if you look at the contemporary world, “The real situation is that most of the world is as religious as it ever was. You have enormous explosions of religion in the world… In fact, you can say every major religious tradition has been going through a period of resurgence in the last 30, 40 years or so… anything but secularization.”(3) Probably the most influential British philosopher of religion of the last half century is longtime Oxford professor Richard Swinburne. In 2003 he published a book entitled The Resurrection of God Incarnate, and in that book he concludes that on the available evidence today, it is 97% probable that Jesus truly—miraculously—rose from the dead, proving that he is the God he claimed to be. Do all philosophers agree with Swinburne? Of course not. And even Swinburne recognizes that we can’t take the exact percentage too seriously. He likes to work with probability theory so he plugs in numbers at each point in the argument; they are only meant to provide a rough estimate. Still though, the fact that someone of his intellectual credibility can make that claim in print, have it published by Oxford University Press, and then ably defend it at top academic conferences all around the world speaks to the fact that the intellectual case for the Christian faith is strong. A number of popular authors have suggested otherwise in recent years. But these New Atheists are generally not engaged with current philosophical scholarship. In fact, much of the new atheism at the popular level can be traced directly back to old scholarship at the academic level. Richard Dawkins denies the existence of a God who can ground good and evil, right and wrong. But criticism without alternative is empty. What is his alternative?: a world in which the disturbing response to being asked whether the wrongness of rape is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six is, “You could say that, yeah.”(4) Quentin Smith denies the existence of a God who can raise the dead. What is his alternative?: “The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing… We should…acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvelous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being.”(5) Is this any less extraordinary than a resurrection from the dead? On second thought, is this not itself a resurrection from the dead? If we think it is our minds that keep us from God, we may not be dealing with the arguments at the highest level. My own story is one of reasoning that if God really made me, and if he made me with my mind, then he would ensure that a sincere intellectual search would point in his direction. To my surprise, that is just what I found. And when I was finally willing to open to God not only my mind but also my heart, I found so much more.(6) Vince Vitale is a member of the speaking team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Oxford, England. (1) Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo. 4.2 (2001), 197. (2) Ibid. (3) Peter Berger, “Six Decades as a Worldwide Religion Watcher: Observations & Lessons Learned.” Ethics & Public Policy Center. n.p., n.d., accessed online on July 22, 2014 at eppc.org. (4) Richard Dawkins, Interview by Justin Brierley, “The John Lennox—Richard Dawkins Debate.” Bethinking.org, 2008. Web. 25 April 2014. www.bethinking.org. (5) Quentin Smith, “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe,” in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (1993), 135. Emphasis added. (6) Some of the ideas expressed in this Slice are also recorded in the following video: bit.ly Copyright © 2018 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, All rights reserved. RZIM and Ravi Zacharias periodically send emails to those interested in the latest events and other ministry opportunities. Our mailing address is: Ravi Zacharias International Ministries 3755 Mansell Road Alpharetta, GA 30022 |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 06-Apr-18, 20:39 |
|
||||||||
|
stalhandske 10-Apr-18, 08:10 |
Black holes are the graveyards of dead stars. |
||||||||
|
Homo Deus But it sounded interesting. Extrapolating just from the title, man is God. Man created God in his image, whether God has independent existence or not. The Greek and Roman gods were very human. The God of the Hebrews adopted only some of those attributes, and we are stuck with that image today--elevating man to Godhood as the need arises. |
||||||||
|
Cern |
||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Jun-18, 06:09 |
Can you give an example of that? A citation or an article or a link? It would make it easier to discuss. |
||||||||
|
Higgs Boson Mass We got the Higgs Boson mass, which was the primary goal, and now we are on a quest for other things. We recently ruled out some aspects of dark matter. The quest continues. |
||||||||
|
stalh |
||||||||
| |||||||||
