[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

I've searched for verses in the KJV 1611 Bible but can't find any scripture saying that the Sun is made of coal. Pls enlighten me.

God hates a liar. You've never even opened a KJV Bible, demon.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Proverbs 26:21 KJV
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.

You were spouting off about subatomic particles before and thermonuclear interactions but seemed reluctant to elaborate. I was perplexed about some of that material and asked 1 or 2 questions..

Electromagnetism came into it somewhere I suppose and the light coming from the sun you probably describe as electromagnetic. The Bible also describes light:

John 1:1-4 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Well there is the electromagnetism. How is it initiated?

II Samuel 22:7-10a KJV
In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down;

That is God's response to our lack of understanding when we call to Him. We call it light, life. God is its origin, He calls it coal. You call it the sun. Are they the same thing? Because if the sun as you'd describe it is the origin of your understanding and its light are the coals of God as He describes it are you describing the same thing or not?

[uncool dude]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

I've searched for verses in the KJV 1611 Bible but can't find any scripture saying that the Sun is made of coal. Pls enlighten me.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Ok pls enlighten me and "save me from hell fire". Tell me why the information on that website is incorrect.

Nobody here is interested in the contents of external websites. We are interested (insofar as we care at all, which in my case is not a lot and getting less every minute) in what you have to say in your own words.

So, once more you have spectacularly missed the point of my post. Even the wretched fool Didymus noticed the same thing. Your entire post was plagiarized. In case you are unfamiliar with the word, here is what the Cambridge dictionary says about it:

to use another person's ideas or work and pretend that it is your own

Note that I have been careful not to plagiarize this definition. I have provided the source, and I have made it clear that I am quoting from it.

In the same way, I am careful not to plagiarize the word of God as brought to us through His when I quote Exodus 20:15: Thou shalt not steal.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Indeed, it is true that light which is generated by nuclear fusion reactions in the center of the Sun takes a very long time to escape and reach Earth. A million years is towards the high end of the estimates I have seen, but it certainly takes many thousands of years.
The reason it takes so long is simply that the atmosphere in the center of the Sun is very dense and opaque (so opaque that if you were there, you wouldn't be able to see the nose in front of your face!). Therefore, light in the Sun's interior can only travel a tiny distance before it is absorbed and reemitted, or scattered, in a random direction by the surrounding plasma. This means that the light will bounce around randomly for many thousands of years before it's lucky enough to get far enough out to escape the Sun and travel the additional eight minutes across space to reach Earth.

(In fact, the light we see from the Sun is not really even the "same" light that was produced in the core; the light generated by nuclear fusion in the core is primarily X-rays and gamma rays, but it gets absorbed and reemitted by cooler material so many times along the way out that most of what is actually emitted from the Sun's surface is regular old visible light.)

Nonetheless, despite the fact that there is such a long delay between the production of the light and it reaching Earth, we can rest assured that nuclear fusion is still going on in the core of the Sun today. Our main evidence for this probably comes from neutrinos, elementary particles which are produced in nuclear reactions in the center of the Sun and which have been observed using detectors on Earth. Unlike light, neutrinos can pass through the Sun untouched (in fact, they can pass through pretty much anything untouched, as memorialized in a famous poem by John Updike). Because of this, they reach the Earth about eight minutes after they are produced, with the delay being due only to the travel time between the Sun and the Earth. Therefore, observations of neutrinos from the direction of the Sun show that the Sun is undergoing nuclear fusion reactions right up until the present day.

If the fusion reactions in the Sun's core were to suddenly "turn off" for some reason, then there are plenty of ways we'd know about it! The fact that we'd stop receiving neutrinos from the Sun is by far the least drastic. The only reason that the Sun is able to sit stably, without collapsing under its own weight, is that the nuclear reactions in the core are constantly providing the heat and pressure needed to hold it up. Without the nuclear reactions, the Sun would start to collapse. However, it would actually be a long time before we noticed the Sun shrinking; the collapse would not proceed in a "free fall" manner because there would still be a lot of latent heat left in the Sun whose pressure would be able to hold it up for a while, until it cooled off. So the collapse would proceed slowly.

However, even within an hour or a day, my guess is that there would still be some noticeable effects. We'd probably see some strange pulsations at the Sun's surface, due to all the turmoil that would be going on in the Sun's core pushing up on the layers above it (very roughly, the Sun would be undergoing "earthquakes" as its interior structure sloshed around). So while the Sun's fusion turning off would not necessarily cause any kind of explosion or major collapse on a one-hour timescale, I think you are right in assuming that there are plenty of ways we'd see it without having to wait for light from the core to diffuse outwards thousands or even millions of years later.

Did you read the Nobel blurb? Here's an interesting section from towards the end:

MISSING NEUTRINOS

New Physics
Physicists and astronomers were once again forced to reexamine their theories. This time, the discrepancy was not between different estimates of the sun's age, but rather between predictions based upon a widely accepted theory and direct measurements of particles produced by nuclear burning in the sun's interior. This situation was sometimes referred to as the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos or, in language that sounded more scientific, the Solar Neutrino Problem.

The pseudoscientist is as much in love with his "millions of years" as with neglecting God's contribution to all of this viz its creation in the first place and His consistent comments concerning the nature of His creation.



So getting back to the "strange pulsations" theory with its millions of years and from the literature of nuclear physics [CLICK RIGHT]



note in particular the bit about ¼ second†



† I understand that even faster "pulsations" are available using different models

[uncool dude]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Oh dear.

Ok pls enlighten me and "save me from hell fire". Tell me why the information on that website is incorrect.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Oh dear.

PLAGIARISM

[Didymus Much]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Why don´t you use your science to rebuke the claims of substantiate your claim and convince Mitza?

...someone else's science stolen from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our...n-intermediate snipped...

Now, can you do it without the plagiarism?

[uncool dude]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Why don´t you use your science to rebuke the claims of substantiate your claim and convince Mitza?

Indeed, it is true that light which is generated by nuclear fusion reactions in the center of the Sun takes a very long time to escape and reach Earth. A million years is towards the high end of the estimates I have seen, but it certainly takes many thousands of years.
The reason it takes so long is simply that the atmosphere in the center of the Sun is very dense and opaque (so opaque that if you were there, you wouldn't be able to see the nose in front of your face!). Therefore, light in the Sun's interior can only travel a tiny distance before it is absorbed and reemitted, or scattered, in a random direction by the surrounding plasma. This means that the light will bounce around randomly for many thousands of years before it's lucky enough to get far enough out to escape the Sun and travel the additional eight minutes across space to reach Earth.

(In fact, the light we see from the Sun is not really even the "same" light that was produced in the core; the light generated by nuclear fusion in the core is primarily X-rays and gamma rays, but it gets absorbed and reemitted by cooler material so many times along the way out that most of what is actually emitted from the Sun's surface is regular old visible light.)

Nonetheless, despite the fact that there is such a long delay between the production of the light and it reaching Earth, we can rest assured that nuclear fusion is still going on in the core of the Sun today. Our main evidence for this probably comes from neutrinos, elementary particles which are produced in nuclear reactions in the center of the Sun and which have been observed using detectors on Earth. Unlike light, neutrinos can pass through the Sun untouched (in fact, they can pass through pretty much anything untouched, as memorialized in a famous poem by John Updike). Because of this, they reach the Earth about eight minutes after they are produced, with the delay being due only to the travel time between the Sun and the Earth. Therefore, observations of neutrinos from the direction of the Sun show that the Sun is undergoing nuclear fusion reactions right up until the present day.

If the fusion reactions in the Sun's core were to suddenly "turn off" for some reason, then there are plenty of ways we'd know about it! The fact that we'd stop receiving neutrinos from the Sun is by far the least drastic. The only reason that the Sun is able to sit stably, without collapsing under its own weight, is that the nuclear reactions in the core are constantly providing the heat and pressure needed to hold it up. Without the nuclear reactions, the Sun would start to collapse. However, it would actually be a long time before we noticed the Sun shrinking; the collapse would not proceed in a "free fall" manner because there would still be a lot of latent heat left in the Sun whose pressure would be able to hold it up for a while, until it cooled off. So the collapse would proceed slowly.

However, even within an hour or a day, my guess is that there would still be some noticeable effects. We'd probably see some strange pulsations at the Sun's surface, due to all the turmoil that would be going on in the Sun's core pushing up on the layers above it (very roughly, the Sun would be undergoing "earthquakes" as its interior structure sloshed around). So while the Sun's fusion turning off would not necessarily cause any kind of explosion or major collapse on a one-hour timescale, I think you are right in assuming that there are plenty of ways we'd see it without having to wait for light from the core to diffuse outwards thousands or even millions of years later.

[Roland]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Ahh yes you reject all the science against a firamanet and flat earth and blindly follow a book. Well have fun with your book.

Why don´t you use your science to rebuke the claims of substantiate your claim and convince Mitza?

[uncool dude]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

One problem from your perspective would be the radiation. Where would it all go? It would be trapped within the firmament and we would all die.

..WHARRGARBL ALERT

Another possibility is that you're unaware of the Machiavellian labyrinth associated with developing theories about the sun and although I don't normally post sources related to science falsely so called by clicking the image [LEFT] you can read the whole sordid tale from a source probably well regarded in the secularist community.

Yes, they really don't see the irony. What will they believe tomorrow? That there are an infinite number of suns and it's a new one rising each morning? That's not what The Bible teaches and that's not what Jesus made for us.

Genesis 1 KJV
1-8a In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

God has told us much more about the firmament and about the sun & moon He's placed within it. That includes information about the origin of species and the distinct and separate creation of men and women, information from The Creator Himself and who are we to naysay His authority in the matter?

Psalm 8 KJV
3-6 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet..
9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Ahh yes you reject all the science against a firamanet and flat earth and blindly follow a book. Well have fun with your book.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Please tell me what's so hard about hydrogen fusing into helium? Actually this is nuclear fusion. Powerplants use fission.

One problem from your perspective would be the radiation. Where would it all go? It would be trapped within the firmament and we would all die.

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

..WHARRGARBL ALERT

Another possibility is that you're unaware of the Machiavellian labyrinth associated with developing theories about the sun and although I don't normally post sources related to science falsely so called by clicking the image [LEFT] you can read the whole sordid tale from a source probably well regarded in the secularist community.

Yes, they really don't see the irony. What will they believe tomorrow? That there are an infinite number of suns and it's a new one rising each morning? That's not what The Bible teaches and that's not what Jesus made for us.

Genesis 1 KJV
1-8a In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

God has told us much more about the firmament and about the sun & moon He's placed within it. That includes information about the origin of species and the distinct and separate creation of men and women, information from The Creator Himself and who are we to naysay His authority in the matter?

Psalm 8 KJV
3-6 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet..
9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

[uncool dude]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Dear Mr. Dude,

The basic but fatal flaw in your reasoning is the presupposition that the Sun would not have enough fuel for our needs if it didn't use atomic energy. This presupposition is usually based on the notion that the "Universe" would be 13.5 billion years old. As we know that God Created Heaven and Earth (Genesis 1:1) only 6000+ years ago, there is absolutely no short supply of coal-based energy for burning in the Sun. Your logic is called circular reasoning: the Universe is old, hence, the Sun requires atomic power, because the Universe is old. You have to break this vicious circle of fallacies by accepting Jesus!




Genesis 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

The above verse also contains the answer to your ambitions.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Where in the bible does it say the sun is coal. Quote scripture please. And I know of some YECs who say the sun runs on nuclear energy. Eg. Ken Ham.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Please tell me what's so hard about hydrogen fusing into helium? Actually this is nuclear fusion. Powerplants use fission.

Dear Mr. Dude,

The basic but fatal flaw in your reasoning is the presupposition that the Sun would not have enough fuel for our needs if it didn't use atomic energy. This presupposition is usually based on the notion that the "Universe" would be 13.5 billion years old. As we know that God Created Heaven and Earth (Genesis 1:1) only 6000+ years ago, there is absolutely no short supply of coal-based energy for burning in the Sun. Your logic is called circular reasoning: the Universe is old, hence, the Sun requires atomic power, because the Universe is old. You have to break this vicious circle of fallacies by accepting Jesus!




Genesis 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

The above verse also contains the answer to your ambitions.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[uncool dude]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Young lady, there is no need to shout. A good Christian is a good listener so there really is no reason to yell at the top of your lungs.

Now that to your position point: who was promoted?

YIC

Noone got promoted. I wanted to get promoted from unsaved trash to forum member.