Chefelf.com Night Life: Now I'm scared - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

Now I'm scared No Christian Left Behind

#31 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 24 November 2004 - 04:05 AM

As far as I remember, Jordan hasn't got a degree - yet, so indeed he must be stydying something and his job in a videostore is just to supplement his grant...

So, that is where he must have got his notion that evolution is no longer "worthy theory". Personally I have never forced myself to watch that particular film, so that encounts for my lack of enlightment in that point.

The above was plain sarcasm.
0

#32 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:11 AM

Nobody in the secular world believes in Darwinism anymore. It's dead. That is what they teach you in Highschool. Zero scientific method is used to explain life by natural process when taught in HS.

Evolution is not an empirical science. You can't run experiments or derive formulae. It's more of a forensic science. You try find the cause by the effects, there is very little to work with.

Darwinism was killed with the lack of fossil evidence. To be precise, none at all. Even Darwin himself was aware of this. He wrote in his book (which I own)

QUOTE
"why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"


The situation is even worse today for Darwinism. No scientist, who values credibility, believes in his theory. They see him as a forefather, nothing more. There has been literally 100's of new theories since his passing. And none of them are even close to being accurate. Most of them are complete contradictions of one another. So why teach a false model? They do it to instill the idea. The sad thing is all my friends were bought back in grade 9 science. They think darwinsim is how we came to be. They could not tell you one thing about evolution or any of it's theroms. All they know is 'natural selection' which does not support evolution at all, and that man was once a monkey. Most evolutionists have given up the monkey thing. They're trying to find a method of explaining how cells change (gradually, fast, etc..) Which by the ways is astronomically more difficult.

A single cell is just too complex, and Highschool education does not address this. We know now that 1 cell is extremely complicated. More complicated than an entire ford manufacturing plant. Back in Darwin's day, people thought that single cells were just mere blobs of jelly. They did not know how complicated they were. When scientists realized that you'd have to go to the chemical and biological level to find anything.

There are many types of evolutionary theories. Biological, Chemical, and Cosmic (don't want to get into all of them right now)

---- side note

The science that I enjoy that can shed light on creation is Thermodynamics, something you do learn in Highschool, at very elmentry level but the main laws are still taught.

The laws of thermodynamics are the most well established laws out there. It's like Newtons law of motion. Thermodynamics is a tricky subject and what I’m about to say is widely adopted and scrutinized by many people.

Law 1)
The principle of the conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Or in other words, it remains constant. For instance. If you put in 100 units of energy into your car then the most work that can be outputted by your engine is 100 units. Energy is constant. (When you buy gas for your car about half of the money you spend actually goes into moving the car. The rest is lost to heat by means of friction and mechanical work. At best you break even (100 in =100 out) but in reality you always take a loss.)

Law 2)

A system operating in contact with a thermal reservoir cannot produce positive work in its surroundings. Or in other words you can't break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder- entropy always increases). So once you get heat, that's the end of the road.

Law 3)

You can't not have a process going on. The only time energy stops is when a process stops, or in other words, Absolute Zero is reached. Which of course is not possible. We've come close, but nobody will ever stop a process completely.


From the above I concluded that

Energy can only change states, it can't be created or destroyed. Eventually, the final state of all energy is heat. So if all the energy in the universe is constant, and of course it's being continuously used (no none movement of particles) then one day all the usable energy will be turned to heat. Hence the chaos theory of the universe. One day all energy will be in it's final state (heat) therefore unuseable and unhabitable. Therefore the universe is not infinite and not self sufficient. It's a ticking time bomb.

This does not really tackle evolution. But the way I see it is if the universe has an ending, then it must of had a begining. Evolutionist, the none theistic kind (the real kind) believe that the universe is eternal, more or less.

Thermodynamics is often called the Pessimists science. You can't win, you can only break even, and you can never get out of the game.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#33 User is offline   WalrusOfPlastic Icon

  • Not Greg
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 07-November 03
  • Location:Detroit
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 November 2004 - 09:11 AM

Jordan, I've heard theories based on that, my brother I think is an advocate of one, but not so much that things began and end and more that things swing back and forth with energy. It all becomes heat over billions of years and then it all changes back to light or whatever. I don't know that much but I'm interested. I will look into it more. It's a cool theory.

And actually it would change the whole perception of "Let there be light" wouldn't it. That's kinda cool.
0

#34 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 24 November 2004 - 04:03 PM

Jordan
I appreciate you taking interest in such things as thermodynamics. I fact, I majored in thermodynamics and heat transfer. And you know what? I taught me mostly humility towards science, because it was revealed to me how much I don’t know. I would never even dareddescribe thermodynamics and its connection to theory of evolution in a few sentences. I also know some people who read a couple of essays on the subject claim to be experts and voice their opinion quite freely.

I do not want to sound patronising, but your theories look like they have been taken from a Reader’s Digest – no, that DOES sound patronising, so, I’ll try again. Your theories sound like those of early Greek philosophers, who in turn thought that „the prime element” of nature was in turn, water (Tales), air (Anaxymenes), fire (Heraclitus) etc. The „heat” you speak about sound just like those early Greek ideas of elements. Are you sure you properly understand the idea of „heat” – heat is just energy transferred from body of another as a result of temperature differences. And may I remind you that temperature is just a measure of kinetic energy of molecules of a body? So „heat” cannot be the final state of energy. You mix things – you properly recapitulated laws of thermodynamics, but are you sure you understand correctly basic definitions?

I do not really want to go into discussion about science. I am not an expert of theory of evolution either. But it just seems to me that evolution is like democracy, which is by no means an ideal system, but yet so far people have been unable to come up with something better.
0

#35 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 24 November 2004 - 07:03 PM

At it again, are we, Jordan? I guess you're right... there is no concrete evidence for the theory of evolution. But it certainly has a lot more going for it than some other theories out there, like oh let's say 'creationism' for example.
0

#36 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 November 2004 - 07:33 PM

I rather like the theory of evolution being taught and I'll tell you why: You can logically argue it. If I, as a student, were to present evidence against the theory of evolution my teacher would (if he or she cared at all) then debate that evidence and it would lead to a better understanding of both our respective theories. That's what's great about evolution, it's a scientific idea and what's even better is noone holds it to be entirely certain.

But if Creationism were the norm and I attempted to argue it I'd simply be burnt for a heretic.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#37 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 24 November 2004 - 08:18 PM

I got that from my old notes and what I could recall from my professor.

Yes I realize heat is energy transfer. I'm not a fucking lab rat, I'm in engineering. I don't pretend to know it all. "You mix things" I don't mix things, I used the term loosely. When we talk about energy loss, it's always heat. I think you damn well know what I was talking about, you're just being smug.

"So „heat” cannot be the final state of energy."

Well that's what we call the final state.

It was just a side note I chimmed in. The main topic was darwinism is dead. That is it. And I even stated that thermdynamic laws do not prove evolution wrong.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 24 November 2004 - 08:21 PM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#38 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 24 November 2004 - 08:58 PM

The above sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. sad.gif

I took 2 courses in the subject and just found it interesting. But just to clairfy.

All energy is heading towards a more random state. Heat is random. I've heard my teachers say that heat is the final state. Most of my study was concerened with closed systems, turbines, refrigeration, and heat transer between solid bodies.
0

#39 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 25 November 2004 - 01:30 AM

QUOTE (Jordan @ Nov 24 2004, 08:58 PM)
All energy is heading towards a more random state.  Heat is random.  I've heard my teachers say that heat is the final state.  Most of my study was concerened with closed systems, turbines, refrigeration, and heat transer between solid bodies.


Jordan, I am sorry buddy but you do mix things. Thermodynamics and heat transfer are not the same things. If you do an engineering course then guys who teach you how to calculate thermal cycles for turbines, Diesel engines and refrigerators do it from engineering point of view and in order to make students understand they simplify things (I know this because at one point of my university career I also attended an engineering course).

I still do not understand what your teachers mean by saying “heat is the final state of energy”???? Perhaps they mean increase of enthalpy? Still, to call this “heat” is a gross simplification.
But really, you are right and we sidetrack, so I won't touch the subject ny more.
0

#40 User is offline   SimeSublime Icon

  • Monkey Proof
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 6,619
  • Joined: 06-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:19 AM

Interesting argumen. I nearly didn't recognize the laws of thermodynamics as you wrote them. A very engineering take on them, to be sure.

I know it was a side issue, but I thougt by "heat is the final state of energy" he meant that all other energy types(mechanic, sound, electrical, potential etc)would be zero, and everything would be at a constant temperature, dependent on the amount of heat energy(which is all the energy)in the universe. This being the heat death of the universe.

And on the point of America's bombing, how did you forget Japan? We've seen two atomic explosions on civilians, and guess who launched them?
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
0

#41 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:36 AM

So the 'chaos theory' is total bullshit? One day all energy will be in the form of heat is incorrect? I can't believe that my prof fabricated or dummied down the truth that much.

Thermodynamics and heat transfer are not the same things

They were taught in the same course. I'm looking at my text right now. I see heat transfer all of the chapter index page.

This book is very comprehesive. Heat transfer, gas mixtures, chemical reactions, refirg, power cycles.

So you're saying that I did not learn real thermodynamics? But practical wishy washy stuff. Regardless, I still found it really hard and interesting. I guess I don't really need to know the ' absolute truth' about this topic since chances are I'll never need it in the field.


types(mechanic, sound, electrical, potential etc)would be zero

Did I say that? I'm not sure if that could happen. I thought all energy in the universe would reach the highest point of disorder, so it couldn't be at abs zero. I don't know anymore.


Perhaps they mean increase of enthalpy

Enthalpy is heat. That is what I was told! Holly shit, I know nothing.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 25 November 2004 - 02:43 AM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#42 User is offline   SimeSublime Icon

  • Monkey Proof
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 6,619
  • Joined: 06-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:42 AM

My memory's a bit dodgey on the topic, but entropy is maximised when energy is in it's cheapes form, which is heat. As energy cannot be created or destroyed, then heat death(when entropy reaches its upper limit)must be when all other forms of energy are zero.
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
0

#43 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 25 November 2004 - 02:43 PM

Darwinism isn't dead. I don't know where you get that. Perhaps my analogies to Euclid and Newton went unnoticed, but I'll be more clear. Darwinism is the basis of modern Evolutionary Science. The difference being that where Darwin patterned his science on Geology, the current trend is more to Genetics. Yes, The Origin of the Species is no longer the textbook for evolutionary theory, but every Evolutionist out ther has read it.

I don't care about Entropy, and Thermodynamics, and the age of the Universe. This is all Red Herring. Yes, the Universe had a beginning, yes, the universe will have an end. we're actually talking about stuff that happened since the one and before the other, so both those extremes are irrelevant.

Really all we have here is a planet dotted with species of similar physiologies and no notion of their common origin. One camp says "they look alike, so they must be related," and the other says "they look alike, therefore Jesus Christ died for our sins." I lean toward the easier answer, of course, because I am lazy. Also, because there's lots of study and genetic background. The similarities, incidentally, on the genetic level are even more convincing than the obvious common bone structures.

And all this they say about fossils: a ) this science isn't that old; b ) fossils are really uncommon and hard to make; and c ) we probably wouldn't recognize a "missing link" if we found one. Besides, isn't it interesting enough that we have Bonobos and chimpanzees? Gibbons and orangutans? Zebras and horses, donkeys, giraffes, and deer? There has to be a reason for it, and if it's "Intelligent Design," I mean if that's really the REASON, then shouldn't we at least TRY to prove it?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#44 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 November 2004 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE
One camp says "they look alike, so they must be related," and the other says "they look alike, therefore Jesus Christ died for our sins."


Bravo. You summed up the argument perfectly and that was a really funny way of doing so.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#45 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 26 November 2004 - 01:51 AM

Well said, Civ. We share what portion of our genes with chimpanzees? 99.9 %? (Not to mention that we share 98% of our genes with a common fruit fly).
0

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size