[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

You have yet to prove that the bible contains the real truth. Like i said, i will not become christian unless someone can prove that the bible has any more credibility than the Vedas or Koran. The book Beowulf was written at around the same time, it has as much credibility as the bible. And as to your points.

1. This is an obvious statement. The quote you cited is vague and could mean just simply that man and women have different seeds, anyone from the 15th century BC could tell you that.

2. That does not mention invisible forces, it mentions forces that do not exist "upon nothing", gravity exists.

3. You don't think people for as long as they existed noticed that the person with a very large wound and were bleeding tended to die very soon. I think people quickly understood the connection.

4. Once again, vague. It could mean that the animals are the paths

5. The quote states that there is a difference between light and dark. Even if it did say that, it would be wrong, photons are particles but they have no mass.

6. This appears to be personification about at happy event. Considering the signals stars give off is light and not sound, this statement would be incorrect if it was literal.

7. Fresh water springs were discovered by the Phoenicians, a mighty empire much older (at least 1000 years older) than the bible.

8. The dust quote says nothing about our survival. It seems to say that counting all the dust in the world would be a very hard task, which it is.

The Vedas, the religious text for Hinduism describes the Pythagorean theorem in the Baudhayana chapter. "A rope stretched along the length of the diagonal produces an area which the vertical and horizontal sides make together." This proves that the people who wrote this book knew about perhaps the most essential geometric equation before the Greeks discovered it 300 years later. this is the first instance of it ever being stated.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

...I used to be much more religious, i used to go to church every Sunday...

That doesn't make you Christian.

Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."

...i used to confess things...

Oh, there it is! You were a Catholic! Here all this time we thought you said you'd been a Christian (there's a huge difference).

As you're here now, why not shut up about your "science" stuff and learn about what being a True Christian™ means?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

In responding to Mary's second post, i did. I used to be much more religious, i used to go to church every Sunday, i used to confess things. But then, I started to gain an intrest in science....

I see. When you gained this interest in science, you lost faith in Jesus.

And people wonder how we know Satan is behind these false sciences.

Friend, the real Truth© is found in the Holy Bible.

• Both man and woman possess the seed of life (Genesis 3:15) discovered by man in 17th century
• Earth is held in place by invisible forces (Job 26:7) discovered by man in 1650
• Blood is necessary for life (Leviticus 17:11) discovered by man in 19th century
• Oceans have natural paths in them (Psalms 8:8) discovered by man in1854
• Light is a particle and has mass (a photon) (Job 38:19) discovered by man in 1932
• Stars give off signals (Job 38:7) discovered by man in 1945
• Oceans contain fresh water springs (Job 38:16) discovered by man in 1920
• Dust is important to survival (Isaiah 40:12) discovered by man in 1935

I hope you don't continue to confuse discovering the Truth© as revealed first in the Holy Bible with man-made beliefs like a billion year old earth. Your very soul is at stake here.

[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

They are underground, but they used to be above ground. Long ago, a massive forest covered that area. This forest might have been about the size of the Amazon Jungle, but something happened. Through some process (I could name several examples, one such is the growth of the Himalayas blocking rain clouds) the forest died, dead wood and leaves littered the ground. And slowly, the soil started to bury all that stuff (objects tend to sink into the ground overtime). As this organic mass got deeper, the weight of the soil on top of it compressed it into things like coal or oil. Much like diamonds are formed from compressed carbon, just at much higher pressures.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Oil coal and natural gas get their energy from the Sun.

Nonsense! They're underground. When was the last time you saw the sun shining underground? You atheists have no sense at all!

[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

In responding to Mary's second post, i did. I used to be much more religious, i used to go to church every Sunday, i used to confess things. But then, I started to gain an intrest in science. I was interested in radioactive decay, biology, and now, i am an expert in astronomy. In my studies, i noticed many contradictions to the bible. Radioactive decay definitively proves that the Earth is far older than 6000 years. As I looked further, i realized that things like evolution and the big bang theory have piles of ever growing evidence while Christianity has a 1600 year old book that is often vague and was altered many times since it was written. I also figured out that there are other religions, some far older than Christianity that have just as much evidence as Christianity. Even if i were to become religious again, i could not definitively decide which religion to join knowing that I would be picking at random.

[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

The who is Nikola Tesla, history says that he worked with electrical generation and brought you the radio and the x-ray machine. Who was Thomas Edison, history says that he mastered DC currents and he brought you a practical light bulb. What about Micheal Faraday and the company, Westinghouse electric whose work paid of in the fact that we can now transmit AC current long distances and light bulbs can be adapted to it. All of these people were scientists and thanks to them, we can have this discussion.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Science brought you electricity. It brought you lighting, air temperature control, ships that can cross the Atlantic ocean in less than 6 months, running water, airplanes, or most significantly, the computer and the internet. Imagine a million million electrons running in silicon chips through tiny wires, an array of alternating ones and zeros all interpreted by you computer screen as indistinct shades of red blue or green which is interpreted by you eyes as a picture. Now imagine thousands of these such things interconnected in a vast web of communication providing a person with a computer and internet access to view millions of files supported by servers around the world called web sites. One such file is the site you are looking at right now. You have science to thank for that. If you wish for science to go away, please dispose of you computer, walk out of you house and find an Indian colony that will accept you, because that is where humanity would be without science. Christianity has science to thank for its rise in popularity. Rome, the chief producer of science, used this to conquer a vast empire. When Emperor Constantine converted, he spread Christianity all throughout the empire. Without this, its doubtful Christianity would have spread farther than the middle east.

Wrong again, demon. GOD gave us electricity and all those things. God did that, not secular scientists.

[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Science brought you electricity. It brought you lighting, air temperature control, ships that can cross the Atlantic ocean in less than 6 months, running water, airplanes, or most significantly, the computer and the internet. Imagine a million million electrons running in silicon chips through tiny wires, an array of alternating ones and zeros all interpreted by you computer screen as indistinct shades of red blue or green which is interpreted by you eyes as a picture. Now imagine thousands of these such things interconnected in a vast web of communication providing a person with a computer and internet access to view millions of files supported by servers around the world called web sites. One such file is the site you are looking at right now. You have science to thank for that. If you wish for science to go away, please dispose of you computer, walk out of you house and find an Indian colony that will accept you, because that is where humanity would be without science. Christianity has science to thank for its rise in popularity. Rome, the chief producer of science, used this to conquer a vast empire. When Emperor Constantine converted, he spread Christianity all throughout the empire. Without this, its doubtful Christianity would have spread farther than the middle east.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

My post appears to have been altered.

Likely your perception and intellect has been altered. You haven't been making much sense, dear, and you are irrationally obsessed with science fiction. Why do you refuse to confess your sins to Jesus? He can make you whole, dear. He can heal your wounded heart.

[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

My post appears to have been altered.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Arm yourselves with knowledge, for I am full of terrors.

You are full of the devil's foolishness, son. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here, but you're refusal to even consider the possibility of the Truth(c) found in the Holy Bible, and your insistence on following the very path of so-called science that gave us such theories as Spontaneous generation, Transmutation of species (Lamarckism), Maternal impression, and other embarrassments to humanity, reveal the extent to which your retarded nature is interfering with whatever goals you must have at one time set when registering here on our friendly forums.

[Asshat Turdhead]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Life does tend to reach equilibrium faster. Life has a tenancy to create complex molecules with more energy stored inside them that the surrounding temperature. This is extrophy (opposite of entropy) because energy is being stored in molecules, where entropy is molecules being broken to release their energy. But these molecules are then broken down eventually to generate energy for the organism. this in the end is faster than normal decay. But this happenes in order to keep the other part of the organism from suffering entropy. Like the law implies, if one thing wants to keep from being affected by entropy, it has to speed up the process in another thing.

Trees can survive for a few days without light. It will stop growing or producing anything at this point since it can gain no energy to construct new cells but it can store enough energy to survive a while. But there are a few forms of life that can survive without the Sun. Instead of energy from the Sun, it gains energy from chemicals in a process called chemosynthesis (as opposed to photosynthesis). Almost all of these life forms live deep under the ocean warmed by vents releasing heat from the Earth into the water. This life will perhaps outlast all of us, the Sun could die and they would hardly notice.

Arm yourselves with knowledge, for I am full of terrors.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

GENESIS 1
1–5 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. KJV

To Red Hair
Like I said before…that the second law of thermodynamics works when the Overall entropy of the system increases. The Sun is rapidly gaining entropy by fusing all this material so the rays it provides can give life the ability to decrease the entropy.

Life does not decrease entropy because a living system will reach equiibrium more rapidly than an non-living system ACCORDING TO YOUR BOILERMAKERS. In their attempt to square the circle however, certain facts need to be disregarded. As you can see the existence of light has nothing to do with the sun. Genesis 1 is very clear on this point with the sun not being created until the 4th day, well after trees were bearing fruit on the earth, generating seeds; there were herbs (also fully developed to seed production), grasses, all growing quite happily without any sun. Previously God had divided land from water—as would be necessary for trees to grow—under the firmament which had been constructed.

NO SUN >>> PLENTY OF TREES >>> CEREALS >>> GRASSES

Eventually the sun was created, and some stars. In trying to work out steam engines the charlatans you worship rejected God and rejected Salvation.

If I pointed out that physicists consider their "laws" to "work" at all times (otherwise they would not be laws) would you know what I meant.

Of course not.

Read all of Genesis here.

[IdiocyofMYUniverse]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

"Our ancestors understood origins by extrapolating from their own experience. How else could they have done it? So the Universe was hatched from a cosmic egg, or conceived in the sexual congress of a mother god and a father god, or was a kind of product of the Creator’s workshop—perhaps the latest of many flawed attempts. And the Universe was not much bigger than we see, and not much older than our written or oral records, and nowhere very different from places that we know.

We’ve tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we’ve not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious.

Then science came along and taught us that we are not the measure of all things, that there are wonders unimagined, that the Universe is not obliged to conform to what we consider comfortable or plausible. We have learned something about the idiosyncratic nature of our common sense. Science has carried human self-consciousness to a higher level. This is surely a rite of passage, a step towards maturity. It contrasts starkly with the childishness and narcissism of our pre-Copernican notions.

And, again, if we’re not important, not central, not the apple of God’s eye, what is implied for our theologically based moral codes? The discovery of our true bearings in the Cosmos was resisted for so long and to such a degree that many traces of the debate remain, sometimes with the motives of the geocentrists laid bare.

What do we really want from philosophy and religion? Palliatives? Therapy? Comfort? Do we want reassuring fables or an understanding of our actual circumstances? Dismay that the Universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish. You might think that grown-ups would be ashamed to put such disappointments into print. The fashionable way of doing this is not to blame the Universe—which seems truly pointless—but rather to blame the means by which we know the Universe, namely science.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign.

Its conclusions derive from the interrogation of Nature, and are not in all cases predesigned to satisfy our wants.

We recognize that even revered religious leaders, the products of their time as we are of ours, may have made mistakes. Religions contradict one another on small matters, such as whether we should put on a hat or take one off on entering a house of worship, or whether we should eat beef and eschew pork or the other way around, all the way to the most central issues, such as whether there are no gods, one God, or many gods.

If you lived two or three millennia ago, there was no shame in holding that the Universe was made for us. It was an appealing thesis consistent with everything we knew; it was what the most learned among us taught without qualification. But we have found out much since then. Defending such a position today amounts to willful disregard of the evidence, and a flight from self-knowledge.

We long to be here for a purpose, even though, despite much self-deception, none is evident.

Our time is burdened under the cumulative weight of successive debunkings of our conceits: We’re Johnny-come-latelies. We live in the cosmic boondocks. We emerged from microbes and muck. Apes are our cousins. Our thoughts and feelings are not fully under our own control. There may be much smarter and very different beings elsewhere. And on top of all this, we’re making a mess of our planet and becoming a danger to ourselves.

The trapdoor beneath our feet swings open. We find ourselves in bottomless free fall. We are lost in a great darkness, and there’s no one to send out a search party. Given so harsh a reality, of course we’re tempted to shut our eyes and pretend that we’re safe and snug at home, that the fall is only a bad dream.

Once we overcome our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe that utterly dwarfs—in time, in space, and in potential—the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors. We gaze across billions of light-years of space to view the Universe shortly after the Big Bang, and plumb the fine structure of matter. We peer down into the core of our planet, and the blazing interior of our star. We read the genetic language in which is written the diverse skills and propensities of every being on Earth. We uncover hidden chapters in the record of our own origins, and with some anguish better understand our nature and prospects. We invent and refine agriculture, without which almost all of us would starve to death. We create medicines and vaccines that save the lives of billions. We communicate at the speed of light, and whip around the Earth in an hour and a half. We have sent dozens of ships to more than seventy worlds, and four spacecraft to the stars.

To our ancestors there was much in Nature to be afraid of—lightning, storms, earthquakes, volcanos, plagues, drought, long winters. Religions arose in part as attempts to propitiate and control, if not much to understand, the disorderly aspect of Nature.

How much more satisfying had we been placed in a garden custom-made for us, its other occupants put there for us to use as we saw fit. There is a celebrated story in the Western tradition like this, except that not quite everything was there for us. There was one particular tree of which we were not to partake, a tree of knowledge. Knowledge and understanding and wisdom were forbidden to us in this story. We were to be kept ignorant. But we couldn’t help ourselves. We were starving for knowledge—created hungry, you might say. This was the origin of all our troubles. In particular, it is why we no longer live in a garden: We found out too much. So long as we were incurious and obedient, I imagine, we could console ourselves with our importance and centrality, and tell ourselves that we were the reason the Universe was made. As we began to indulge our curiosity, though, to explore, to learn how the Universe really is, we expelled ourselves from Eden. Angels with a flaming sword were set as sentries at the gates of Paradise to bar our return. The gardeners became exiles and wanderers. Occasionally we mourn that lost world, but that, it seems to me, is maudlin and sentimental. We could not happily have remained ignorant forever.

There is in this Universe much of what seems to be design.

But instead, we repeatedly discover that natural processes—collisional selection of worlds, say, or natural selection of gene pools, or even the convection pattern in a pot of boiling water—can extract order out of chaos, and deceive us into deducing purpose where there is none.

The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is then determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable.

If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal."