[James Hutchins]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

Scientific Method Steps
Scientific method:

Oh Anna, don't you see the folly here? You really need to get a man to review your posts BEFORE you press send.

1.Make observations

Daydream

2.Propose a hypothesis

Create a bald faced lie

3.Design an experiment to test the hypothesis

Create a story to back up the lie

4.Test the hypothesis

Try to find someone gullible enough to believe your lie

5.Accept or reject the hypothesis

Decide if others will buy into you flight of fantasy

6.-Revise the hypothesis (Rejected) - Draw conclusions (Accepted)

If a sucker swallows the hook with your lie, try to spread it further, otherwise, create a new lie and start over.


Anna, 'hypothesis' are nothing more than 'theories' which are nothing more than 'guesses'. The Bible is fact. Do you really expect people with common sense to believe lies or the Truth? Guesses or God?

[schsuter]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

What is chaos but complexity beyond our understanding?

And there is a large energy source, supplying earth with light, and warmth.
It is known as the sun.

[Jedediah]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

I would also like to point out the the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW, while the theory of evilution is JUST A THEORY. Laws come from God; theories are made up by men. Who will you follow - God, or men?

Hebrews 10:28-31
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

And yes, that is a threat. Accept God's Law or burn for all eternity.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

In this case, it does not actually work because of incomplete knowledge.

Really? So the meta analysis that said that hormone supplementation for menopausal women was evil shouldn't be allowed because there was incomplete knowledge?

Are you sure you know what meta analysis is?

Scientists are not sure, hence the theories.

Which you are spewing on here as fact.

It doesn't. Read the last three pages.

I have read it. Have you? The True Christians are absolutely right.

Not exactly. They would simply be replicating an extremely rare event that hypothetically happened long ago without a creator.

Oh, I see, so they need a creator to make RNA, but somehow it just magically happened without a creator before Oh well, why didn't you explain that before?

That's not what happens, but continue believing that.

Actually, I was just paraphrasing what you said.

I don't know, but you're biased towards God as the creator. Hard to change that, so I'd rather not try.

So you admit that you're willing to accept a creator as long as it isn't the Christian God?

Why do you hate Jesus so much?

[Tool of satan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

The Second Law of Thermodynamics absolutely disproves evilution, since secular "scientists" (falsely so-called, II Timothy 6:20-21) cannot account for the influx of energy into the closed Earth/Sun/Waters/Firmament system without invoking God. God has already given us His account of Creation in the Holy Bible, and it has nothing to do with random mutations over "millions of years."

Scientists don't believe in a "Sun/Earth/Waters/Firmament" system. Explanation for the energy is provided in the posts in the last few pages.

You can't simply claim victory without subjecting your bogus hypotheses to the intellectual rigor demanded by the study of True Science. For instance, I've yet to see you back up a single assertion with even a tangentially related verse of Scripture.

We were talking about why the scientific second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the scientific theory of evolution to secular scientists. If we quoted the Bible, this thread would become completely meaningless.

That's because they are not God. You can continue putting your faith in your supposed monkey great-grandfather. As for me and my family, we will serve the LORD.

Go ahead.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

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

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

In this case, it does not actually work because of incomplete knowledge.

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

Scientists are not sure, hence the theories.

So the fact that we're not getting simpler, well maybe YOU are :monkey: doesn't go against the second law of thermodynamics.

It doesn't. Read the last three pages.

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

Not exactly. They would simply be replicating an extremely rare event that hypothetically happened long ago without 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.

That's not what happens, but continue believing that.

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

I don't know, but you're biased towards God as the creator. Hard to change that, so I'd rather not try.

[Jedediah]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

So you just pick and choose which scientific laws to follow whenever you feel like it?

Amen, sister. It seems these God-deniers have at least one thing in common with cherry-picking, "cafeteria Christians." They think they can just pick and choose which scientific laws apply just like the false Christians-in-name-only think they can pick and choose which parts of the Holy Bible apply to their lives.

They'll have all eternity to compare notes with each other in the pit of hell.

[Jedediah]

Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evilution

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

The Second Law of Thermodynamics absolutely disproves evilution, since secular "scientists" (falsely so-called, II Timothy 6:20-21) cannot account for the influx of energy into the closed Earth/Sun/Waters/Firmament system without invoking God. God has already given us His account of Creation in the Holy Bible, and it has nothing to do with random mutations over "millions of years."

You can't simply claim victory without subjecting your bogus hypotheses to the intellectual rigor demanded by the study of True Science. For instance, I've yet to see you back up a single assertion with even a tangentially related verse of Scripture. So before you come into our Christian forum spewing your snotty back-sass, at least try to make us consider your arguments for five seconds before dismissing them due to lack of basis in reality.

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

That's because they are not God. You can continue putting your faith in your supposed monkey great-grandfather. As for me and my family, we will serve the LORD.

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[{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

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

[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.