[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Second law of thermodynamics could be applies only if
Earth is was closed isolated system
But it isn't
"Large external energy source" as you called it is the Sun

Last time I checked, I didn't see any extension cords going up to the sun.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Second law of thermodynamics could be applies only if
Earth is was closed isolated system
But it isn't
"Large external energy source" as you called it is the Sun

Let's think about this shall we?

If all of creation is a closed system the what is the energy source? Unless you fancy going down the route of infinite regression you have to logically conclude God.

Next?

YIC

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Last time I checked, I didn't see any extension cords going up to the sun.

Energy from Sun comes from via sunlight
created in its core by nuclear fusion
Solar energy

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Yes they do
And I fail to see point of this post
The Sun is that what you call "large external energy source"

The sun is part of the earth and firmament. It's inside the firmament. How is that external? Maybe you don't understand words.

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

The sun is part of the earth and firmament. It's inside the firmament. How is that external? Maybe you don't understand words.

Really
What do you think Sun revolves Earth
And did you look at links?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Really
What do you think Sun revolves Earth
And did you look at links?

You don't see the sun move across the sky? It doesn't move fast. You have to look away for a bit then look back. Surely you notice it rise in the morning and set in the evening on the other edge of the earth...

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

You don't see the sun move across the sky? It doesn't move fast. You have to look away for a bit then look back. Surely you notice it rise in the morning and set in the evening on the other edge of the earth...

OK
Earth is spherical
It rotates araoud Sun and around its axis
As Earth rotates around its axis to us it seams that
Sun rotates but it is standing

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

OK
Earth is spherical
It rotates araoud Sun and around its axis
As Earth rotates around its axis to us it seams that
Sun rotates but it is standing

So you say...
God says different
There is conflict
So I'm going to believe God

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

So you say...
God says different
There is conflict
So I'm going to believe God

Your decision
But think about this
You could stop "believing" in gravity
Apple will still fall

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Your decision
But think about this
You could stop "believing" in gravity
Apple will still fall

Of course apples fall. They still fell before some fool made up a word and did some sums to try to prove God's description of the earth and firmament wrong.

But God's still here even if you stop believing in Him.

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Of course apples fall. They still fell before some fool made up a word and did some sums to try to prove God's description of the earth and firmament wrong.

But God's still here even if you stop believing in Him.

OK
Explain this
How come that on one side of Earth
is night while on opozite side is day(in same time)
For example while in New York is day in Tokyo is night?
And how cant we see same stars from northern hemisphere
as sean from sought hemisphere?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

OK
Explain this
How come that on one side of Earth
is night while on opozite side is day(in same time)
For example while in New York is day in Tokyo is night?
And how cant we see same stars from northern hemisphere
as sean from sought hemisphere?

Are you aware of the argument from ignorance fallacy? Just because I can't explain some sort of made up fact you assert doesn't mean your explanation is by default correct.

God, meanwhile, can see what you are trying to do to my immortal soul and He hates it.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Are you aware of the argument from ignorance fallacy? Just because I can't explain some sort of made up fact you assert doesn't mean your explanation is by default correct.

God, meanwhile, can see what you are trying to do to my immortal soul and He hates it.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

So you have no answer
I suggest some research
Here you can start here
Sun
Earth
Earth rotation
Daylight
If you still believe in flat Earth hypostasis
Then there is no point in presenting prof to you

[Jedediah]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Energy from Sun comes from via sunlight
created in its core by nuclear fusion
Solar energy

Can you back any of that up with Scripture?

I stopped reading when that article started throwing out phony numbers. Their estimates are way off, and I'm simply not so credulous as to believe any of it. We know that the sun is roughly 500 miles overhead, not "149.6 million kilometers," well within the firmament. Further, we know that the sun is a huge lump of coal (carbon), unlike stars, which are most likely diamonds. None of this nucular baloney is required. I suggest you look up Occam's Razor. But all this is moot since the sun, stars, moon, and earth are all contained within the firmament - a closed system.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is clearly too complex for your feeble female brain to comprehend, and you will grasp at any straw to continue denying the Biblical account of Creation since you are repulsed by righteousness and hopelessly addicted to your life of sin.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Scientists already know about the sun. Besides, we know that since evolution isn't true, this "large external energy source" doesn't exist.

Scientists believe the sun is the "large external energy source" even if you don't.Your logic basically states that evolution isn't true, so the sun doesn't exist.

Now looking at this from another perspective, you could be saying that "evolution isn't true, so the sun isn't a large external energy source, and there's no such thing. Which would also be a large gap.

Simply put, it's a fallacy. Very interesting how you see this in others but not in yourself. Or maybe it's a consequence of not being able to think rationally.

Your best bet is to go with "the sun is not a large external energy source, and there is none, therefore evolution cannot happen." Which would lead back to the question of whether the sun is a large external energy source, which scientists maintain it is and you do not.

So no, thermodynamics still does not disprove evolution, because you have to look at this from a scientific perspective to disprove it to anyone who believes in evolution.

Anyways, wouldn't you consider the "large external energy source" to be God?