Facts Found From Creation Science

[ChristineM]

It's not me with the blockage, but you. As I've said, I believed in evolution until I thought they were wrong. Thus, I looked at what the creation scientists were saying and are saying today. They are right while the atheist scientists and you only think you are right. To further my point, how right was Darwin? His theories have mostly been discarded. Yet, atheist scientists still think his evolution was correct. Creation scientists only recognize natural selection (found by Edward Blyth, creation scientist) and genetic modification. While we do not trust genetic modification and mutation, we recognize it is still science. Yet, all this is still at the molecular level which is important.

Your opinion is not my problem, evolution has not been falsified.

Creation science is an oxymoron. Creation denies the scienrific method.

Wrong, Darwin's theories are either still valid or have been improved upon, see previous sentence.

As for the rest, word salad

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, for the water in the pot, but the heat flows from the water being taken out into the room even though it doesn't change the temperature of the room.

Oh, yes it does. Not by much, because of the size of the room, but it definitely increases the temperature.

What about evaporation of the water (increase in entropy) before it turns to ice? We would have to cover the pot to preven that. Thus, it seems to me that one would have to manage the process for it to be an ordered decrease in entropy. In other words, it's not a natural or random process.

Wrong. For example, water will turn to ice even if it is surrounded by rock that prevents evaporation. The heat from the water will go into the rock during that process and increase the entropy of the rock.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

>>GT: You just have to believe it is<<

Isn't that faith which leads to religion.

The problem is it doesn't happen this way today nor did it in the past. Atheist scientists think they can create an atom, but they can't. All they can do change things at the atomic level and form new molecules. Thus, genetic modification, but no creation.

I've keep an open mind, but enough is enough. I gave up around 2011 and started reading the Bible more in 2012. Grown adults who think universes and life just pops up. The four main areas of mistaken science are in geology where it started with Principles of Geology (uniformitarianism), paleontology, zoology and biology. Biology isn't so bad because it was able to move forward with "cells are the smallest structural and functional unit of life; all living things are composed of one or more cells, and that all cells come from preexisting cells (biogenesis)." Life begats life which is what Jesus taught us.

However, Francis Crick founded biology as an irreversible process of transferring sequence information from DNA to RNA to protein.

"The discovery of DNA’s double-helix structure truly revolutionized biology, opening the door to amazing breakthroughs in our understanding of disease and genetic disorders, and it inspired the just-completed Human Genome Project, hailed as the “periodic table of biology” (see Human Genome Project Complete ... Again)."

Again, the molecular level. Not the atomic level. Modification, but no creation.

"No More Need For God?

The celebrations have a dark side, however. Many atheistic evolutionists claim that the discovery of DNA’s structure is proof of evolution and a nail in God’s coffin. As they see it, the discovery of a “universal” molecular structure for storing and passing on information to offspring—shared by almost all forms of life1—allows scientists to find a purely physical explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth, without any need for a Creator.


Indeed, both Crick and Watson have been outspoken in their belief that the discovery of DNA’s structure has helped overturn belief in the God of the Bible. Francis Crick has repeatedly said that he sees DNA as a confirmation of evolution, which discredits “the god hypothesis.”2 His co-discoverer, James Watson, says that our understanding of DNA has helped to debunk religious “myths from the past.”


Watson boldly told the London Telegraph in a recent interview, “Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours.”3


Many of the world’s leading scientists will hear this message today at a huge gathering of luminaries (including Watson himself) who traveled to Cambridge to praise the ongoing impact of Watson and Crick’s discovery.


The culmination of the day, after a series of speeches on molecular medicine, cancer, aging, etc., is a lecture titled “Genes and human nature” by Matt Ridley, author of the bestseller Genome. Ridley will speak about the broader implications of human genome research, and it is not hard to guess what he will say.


Scientific American describes Ridley as “an avid proponent of the Darwinian view of the world, [who] perceives the genome not as a cookbook or a manual but as a quintessentially historical document—a three-billion-year memoir of our species from its beginnings in the primal ooze to the present day.”4


Around the world, believers in “goo-to-you” evolution, like Matt Ridley, are repeating the mantra that the human genome holds the key to unlocking the mystery of human nature and the evolution of life on Earth."

Yet, there is only one good answer to all this and thus, the battle rages on.

Thanks for the detailed post, I agree with all that in general.

Discovering a digital information system determining biological design....utterly inexplicable by Darwinian processes. Perhaps half a century ago this seemed like the sort of thing that might just self organize?

We only know one way such systems are created, not to say chance is impossible, but hardly a 'default' assumption- unless that was already a very strong preference!

 

[james bond]

Your opinion is not my problem, evolution has not been falsified.

Evolution has been falsified because it does not follow the SLOT. We do not know of any system that does not follow SLOT and is successful.

Creation science is an oxymoron. Creation denies the scienrific method.

That's scientific method, which was created by a creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon.

Wrong, Darwin's theories are either still valid or have been improved upon, see previous sentence.

Your lack of knowledge isn't my problem. This is all that's left of Darwin. Again, atheists are usually wrong.

 

[james bond]

Oh, yes it does. Not by much, because of the size of the room, but it definitely increases the temperature.



Wrong. For example, water will turn to ice even if it is surrounded by rock that prevents evaporation. The heat from the water will go into the rock during that process and increase the entropy of the rock.

If it definitely increases the temperature, then how could it be decreasing entropy as you stated? I would agree it would raise the temperature, but it's negligible because of the heat already present in the room. That's why I used the glass case example.

I don't doubt the water would turn to ice whether it's covered or not (to prevent evaporation), but it isn't a natural scenario. Moreover, you just stated that it still increases the temperature of its surroundings even by an infinitesimal amount. Isn't it considered to be in equilibrium as the SLOT states or are you still claiming decreased entropy?

 

[Polymath257]

If it definitely increases the temperature, then how could it be decreasing entropy as you stated? I would agree it would raise the temperature, but it's negligible because of the heat already present in the room. That's why I used the glass case example.

No, the entropy change depends on the heat, not the change in temperature. So the entropy of the environment increases and that of the freezing water decreases. Together, there is an overall increase of entropy, but the entropy of the water itself decreases.

I don't doubt the water would turn to ice whether it's covered or not (to prevent evaporation), but it isn't a natural scenario.

Of course it would and of course it is natural. Once the temperature decreases enough, the water will *spontaneously* freeze and in doing so release heat to the environment. In that process, the entropy of the *water* decreases, that of the environment increases and the net entropy change is an increase.

Moreover, you just stated that it still increases the temperature of its surroundings even by an infinitesimal amount. Isn't it considered to be in equilibrium as the SLOT states or are you still claiming decreased entropy?

There is a fixed amount of heat released when a mole of water freezes. That heat goes into the environment and increases the temperature by an amount reflective of the size of the enviornment and its heat capacity. The entropy of the water decreases. The entropy of the environment increases and the entropy of the system (water plus environment) increases.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And, once again, the word "facts" is rendered completely meaningless.

 

[ChristineM]

Evolution has been falsified because it does not follow the SLOT. We do not know of any system that does not follow SLOT and is successful.



That's scientific method, which was created by a creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon.



Your lack of knowledge isn't my problem. This is all that's left of Darwin. Again, atheists are usually wrong.

I have asked before, what is the slot? "Googling Francis Bacon, slot" returns nothing regarding slot so please provide a link to valid peer reviewed specifics of this slot.

Francis bacon was a fine scientist over 400 years ago. He aided in the refinement of the scientific method. And yes, the study of evolution is performed using the scientific method and meets, exceeds the requirements of the scientific method and has not been falsified despite myriad attempts

Please provide evidenced that Francis bacon was a creation scientist, he was most certainly christian, as were about 99.99% of English people at the time. But no documentation, history or otherwise that i have read describes him as a creation scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has been falsified because it does not follow the SLOT. We do not know of any system that does not follow SLOT and is successful.

That has been demonstrated not to be the case. Creationists simply have a very very poor understanding of the SLOT.

That's scientific method, which was created by a creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon.

Why besmirch the man? There was a lot that he did not know, but you cannot support that claim. When did he ever use that mistaken belief that he had in his work in the sciences?

Your lack of knowledge isn't my problem. This is all that's left of Darwin. Again, atheists are usually wrong.

Says the man that is constantly shown to be wrong. Perhaps we should start on the basics. Do you think that you understand the scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have asked before, what is the slot? "Googling Francis Bacon, slot" returns nothing regarding slot so please provide a link to valid peer reviewed specifics of this slot.

Francis bacon was a fine scientist over 400 years ago. He aided in the refinement of the scientific method. And yes, the study of evolution is performed using the scientific method and meets, exceeds the requirements of the scientific method and has not been falsified despite myriad attempts

Please provide evidenced that Francis bacon was a creation scientist, he was most certainly christian, as were about 99.99% of English people at the time. But no documentation, history or otherwise that i have read describes him as a creation scientist.

Second Law Of Thermodynamics. JB has it terribly wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Second Law Of Thermodynamics. JB has it terribly wrong.

Thank you, not heard it referred to like that. Yes he absolutely has it wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Evolution has been falsified because it does not follow the SLOT. We do not know of any system that does not follow SLOT and is successful.



That's scientific method, which was created by a creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon.



Your lack of knowledge isn't my problem. This is all that's left of Darwin. Again, atheists are usually wrong.

Now SZ has clarified SLOT, i have a already explained why the second law of thermodynamics predicts evolution.

 

[james bond]

Now SZ has clarified SLOT, i have a already explained why the second law of thermodynamics predicts evolution.

And as usual, both of you are WRONG.

 

[YmirGF]

Oh, yes it does. Not by much, because of the size of the room, but it definitely increases the temperature.

Hehe. Nice. I was a bit more humble. My thought was, "This was obviously written by someone who doesn't cook much."

 

[ChristineM]

And as usual, both of you are WRONG.

Wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

And as usual, both of you are WRONG.

Polymath knows far more about physics than either of us, why don't you ask him? I could support my claims with various sites, but all that an increase in entropy represents is a lowering of the amount of energy available for work.


Tell us how evolution is impossible in a way that does not make life itself impossible.

 

[james bond]

No, the entropy change depends on the heat, not the change in temperature. So the entropy of the environment increases and that of the freezing water decreases. Together, there is an overall increase of entropy, but the entropy of the water itself decreases.

Of course it would and of course it is natural. Once the temperature decreases enough, the water will *spontaneously* freeze and in doing so release heat to the environment. In that process, the entropy of the *water* decreases, that of the environment increases and the net entropy change is an increase.

There is a fixed amount of heat released when a mole of water freezes. That heat goes into the environment and increases the temperature by an amount reflective of the size of the enviornment and its heat capacity. The entropy of the water decreases. The entropy of the environment increases and the entropy of the system (water plus environment) increases.

This matches what we have been discussing except we disagree on the minutia of the heat flow. I'm not sure how one keeps track of some water molecules. Thus, I would say the system is in equilibrium as heat flow is negligible. The SLOT remains. Again, I do not know of any system that violates the SLOT and succeeds.

Anyway, this is a small environmental change and not enough to sustain life. If you were heating the water for cooking, then maybe you feed an individual or small family. What do we need for this scenario to support something like colonization?

 

[james bond]

I have asked before, what is the slot? "Googling Francis Bacon, slot" returns nothing regarding slot so please provide a link to valid peer reviewed specifics of this slot.

Francis bacon was a fine scientist over 400 years ago. He aided in the refinement of the scientific method. And yes, the study of evolution is performed using the scientific method and meets, exceeds the requirements of the scientific method and has not been falsified despite myriad attempts

Please provide evidenced that Francis bacon was a creation scientist, he was most certainly christian, as were about 99.99% of English people at the time. But no documentation, history or otherwise that i have read describes him as a creation scientist.

I'm glad you're reading about Sir Francis Bacon. He is considered the father of the scientific method.

Moreover, you need to do your own work and not depend on others to answer common questions that you have, especially when you hold an opposing worldview to theirs. I'll give you some clues. In what year, did Sir Francis Bacon come up with the scientific method?

Who and when came up with the laws of thermodynamics? Who and when did they come up with SLOT? What scientific methods did they use?

As for what SFB believed in, find out if he believed in creation or Genesis? Did he believe in God?

What about the people who came up with the LOT and SLOT?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm glad you're reading about Sir Francis Bacon. He is considered the father of the scientific method.

Moreover, you need to do your own work and not depend on others to answer common questions that you have, especially when you hold an opposing worldview to theirs. I'll give you some clues. In what year, did Sir Francis Bacon come up with the scientific method?

Who and when came up with the laws of thermodynamics? Who and when did they come up with SLOT? What scientific methods did they use?

As for what SFB believed in, find out if he believed in creation or Genesis? Did he believe in God?

What about the people who came up with the LOT and SLOT?

No he is considered an aid to refining the scientific method. The method began to take shape in ancient Greece, then the middle east with the early Muslim scientists before Bacon got his hands on it.

So you have non evidence bacon was a creation scientist despite making the claim. I do wish people would be honest.

I suggest you read your own words of the previous paragraph before making a hypocrite of yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

This matches what we have been discussing except we disagree on the minutia of the heat flow. I'm not sure how one keeps track of some water molecules. Thus, I would say the system is in equilibrium as heat flow is negligible. The SLOT remains. Again, I do not know of any system that violates the SLOT and succeeds.

Anyway, this is a small environmental change and not enough to sustain life. If you were heating the water for cooking, then maybe you feed an individual or small family. What do we need for this scenario to support something like colonization?

OK, in an environment under constant pressure and temperature(like our atmosphere), the appropriate variable to deal with both heat flow and entropy is called the Gibb's fre energy and is G=H-ST. Here, H is the heat, S is the entropy, and T is the temperature. A reaction is spontaneous only if G decreases. This can happen in two main ways: H decreases (heat flows out of the system) or S increases (entropy increases).

So, for example, when water freezes, S decreases, but H also decreases (heat flows out of the water). If the temperature T is low enough the change in H compensates for the change in S and the water will freeze. But if T is large, the entropy part dominates and the water does not freeze, it melts.