[Tool of satan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

No. Not unless you can prove it. Temperatures may be increasing but you have no reason to believe it is anthroengendered.

YIC

There's evidence for it, go look it up.

Humans may not be the cause, or may only be part of the cause, but the evidence supporting the theory that human activities increase the rate of global warming is pretty strong.

Obviously, you think God is doing this or that it isn't happening. So continue believing that.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Your grammar is horrible, but I get the gist.

You don't need the laws of thermodynamics to confirm global warming. The average termperature is rising on earth because of the greenhouse gases created by humans. Pretty simple.

According to "scientists" we are in the Cenozoic period and are still in an "ice age" that started 3 million years ago. There are even "scientists" that claim that all the warming since 1850 is just recovering from the "little ice age".

None of this really makes any sense as the Bible (KJV1611) indicates that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Anyway, it's pretty cold out right now and we could use some warming and if some "scientists" are correct we need to do all we can do to prevent another ice age.

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

None of this really makes any sense as the Bible (KJV1611) indicates that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Anyway, it's pretty cold out right now and we could use some warming and if some "scientists" are correct we need to do all we can do to prevent another ice age.

Do you know that some scientist says
global warming could cause an ice age
How?

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Your grammar is horrible, but I get the gist.

You don't need the laws of thermodynamics to confirm global warming. The average termperature is rising on earth because of the greenhouse gases created by humans. Pretty simple.

Of course the average temperature is rising. Spring is right around the corner

Why do we never hear about 'global warming' in October?

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Do you know that some scientist says
global warming could cause an ice age
How?

So once again you prove that "scientists" can't agree on anything, but we're supposed to "have faith" in them to fix everything.

Yeah, I'll put my faith in the creator. Thanks anyway.

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

So once again you prove that "scientists" can't agree on anything, but we're supposed to "have faith" in them to fix everything.

Yeah, I'll put my faith in the creator. Thanks anyway.

Science can only answer questions
with the information available at the time.
Science can answer some questions but not all
because not all information is available all the time.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Science can only answer questions
with the information available at the time.
Science can answer some questions but not all
because not all information is available all the time.

Except you people can't even agree on the "answers" today.

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Except you people can't even agree on the "answers" today.

It is not about not agreeing
it is how some scientists interpret something they discovered
and we won't know until is one is proven(by new information)
Information which we don't have

[James Hutchins]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

It is not about not agreeing
it is how some scientists interpret something they discovered
and we won't know until is one is proven(by new information)
Information which we don't have

Now there is part of your problem. Interperting. With the KJV Bible, you do not do that. You simply read it and follow it. God tells us everything we need to know.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

It is not about not agreeing

How can something be truth if you can't agree on it

it is how some scientists interpret something they discovered

Okay, so according to you, because boiling water bubbles, all water that bubbles is boiling. After all, that's how I interpreted the water on my stove. Hmm..... the water in my aquarium is bubbling. I didn't realize that tropical fish liked their water THAT hot!

and we won't know until is one is proven(by new information)
Information which we don't have

So according to you, science is useless because it can't prove anything unless it can prove something (by new information) which we don't have

Wow, I think I'll stick with my Bible, thanks

[{Anna}]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

How can something be truth if you can't agree on it

Okay, so according to you, because boiling water bubbles, all water that bubbles is boiling. After all, that's how I interpreted the water on my stove. Hmm..... the water in my aquarium is bubbling. I didn't realize that tropical fish liked their water THAT hot!

So according to you, science is useless because it can't prove anything unless it can prove something (by new information) which we don't have

Wow, I think I'll stick with my Bible, thanks

Scientific Method Steps
Scientific method:
1.Make observations
2.Propose a hypothesis
3.Design an experiment to test the hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis
5.Accept or reject the hypothesis
6.-Revise the hypothesis (Rejected) - Draw conclusions (Accepted)

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Scientific Method Steps
Scientific method:
1.Make observations
2.Propose a hypothesis
3.Design an experiment to test the hypothesis
4.Test the hypothesis
5.Accept or reject the hypothesis
6.-Revise the hypothesis (Rejected) - Draw conclusions (Accepted)

1. The world exists
2. The world required a creator
3. Meta-analysis shows that life has not spontaneously started on other planets, nor has a new life form just popped up on earth. Also, as this thread started out,

One of the most basic scientific principles is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that, over time, entropy (disorder) in an environment will increase.

4. Second Law of Thermodynamics is a scientific law, so you have to agree with it. I have not heard any scientist claiming to have discovered spontaneous life anywhere, and creationist scientists have not been able to recreate "spontaneous life.
5. Hypothesis accepted
6. Conclusion, God obviously exists and created the world, just as he stated.

There you go.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Do you know that some scientist says
global warming could cause an ice age
How?

So what caused the last ice age - dinosaur farts? Are you telling us we need to start buying land in equatorial Africa?

[Tool of satan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

1. The world exists
2. The world required a creator
3. Meta-analysis shows that life has not spontaneously started on other planets, nor has a new life form just popped up on earth.

1 and 2, good... sort of.
3 isn't an experiment, but no, new life forms don't just "pop up". Not sure how that supports the hypothesis because a creator would've had to have new life forms just popping up for there to be all these different species. And there hasn't been any evidence of life on other planets because we don't know about them.

4. Second Law of Thermodynamics is a scientific law, so you have to agree with it. I have not heard any scientist claiming to have discovered spontaneous life anywhere, and creationist scientists have not been able to recreate "spontaneous life.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution, as already pointed out. No point bringing it up.
Scientists have no idea how to create life yet. They also have no means of exploring planets far from Earth.

5. Hypothesis accepted

Why'd you even bother? Nothing in your experiment proves the existence of a creator.

6. Conclusion, God obviously exists and created the world, just as he stated.

There you go.

Even if you did correctly use the scientific method to prove your hypothesis, this conclusion would still be wrong. You'd be proving that there is a creator, not that the creator is God or that He is still around and wrote the Bible.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

1 and 2, good... sort of.
3 isn't an experiment, but no, new life forms don't just "pop up". Not sure how that supports the hypothesis because a creator would've had to have new life forms just popping up for there to be all these different species. And there hasn't been any evidence of life on other planets because we don't know about them.

So meta analysis isn't accepted scientific proof? Really?

Have you informed the scientific community of this? Because they seem to accept it.

Oh and if life forms don't just "pop up" how exactly did evolution start?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution, as already pointed out. No point bringing it up.

So the fact that we're not getting simpler, well maybe YOU are :monkey: doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics. Hmm..... So you just pick and choose which scientific laws to follow whenever you feel like it?

Scientists have no idea how to create life yet. They also have no means of exploring planets far from Earth.

Actually they do, but guess what, the life they created.....REQUIRED A CREATOR! Therefore, more proof that a creator is needed.

Why'd you even bother? Nothing in your experiment proves the existence of a creator.

No, you just don't like my answers. See this is the problem with modern science. If a real scientist comes up with proof of something that isn't politically correct, then it's not accepted, no matter how much proof is supplied.

Even if you did correctly use the scientific method to prove your hypothesis, this conclusion would still be wrong. You'd be proving that there is a creator, not that the creator is God or that He is still around and wrote the Bible.

Well if there's a creator, who else would it be? Ra?