The stupidity of Christianity Part MCVIII

TheKingOfCarrotFlowers said:
As compared to the 700 anti-evolution scientists who signed the anti-evolution petition - most of them engineers (I don't mean to be mean to engineers, but you know they have a "I'm always right and everything has to be perfect!" mindset that can lead to this kind of logic). I think maybe that one crazy PHD biologist who works at Discovery Institute signed it too.

The point of the Project Steve wasn't a mean spirited nose rubbing, just an attempt to mock the numbers game creationists were trying to play. I think it was highly effective.
Click to expand...
Exactly and keep in mind that all the scientist in project Steve had doctorates in the life sciences. Not some unrelated discipline.
 
AssHatZombie said:
http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaBabylonian_Myth_of_the_Flood.htm
Ancient Babylonia - Babylonian Myth of the Flood





A recurring myth though out the whole of the Middle East is that is that of a great flood or deluge. Indeed the theme is discovered as far as Western Europe and India.

According to the Babylonian version the flood is caused by the great storm god Enlil to punish mankind. In a city called Shuruppak on the river Euphrates there lived a man called Uta-Napishtim. He was the favourite of Ea, the god of wisdom and was warned by the god. Uta-Napishtim built himself a great boat 120 cubits high and the same wide. He took inside it his family, many craftsmen and a great stock of food. The pilot was called Puzur-Bel.

For six days and six nights it rained. The sun was blocked out. Even the gods were frightened and all men except Uta-Napishtim were destroyed. The gods were distraught at man's destruction. The boat of Uta-Napishtim came to rest on Mount Nisir. On the seventh day of their resting on Mount Nisir he sent out a dove, which finding no place to land, returned and then he sent out a raven which did not return so he knew it was safe.

When he went out of his boat he made a sacrifice to the gods. The goddess Ishtar came and created a rainbow: her necklace. When Enlil discovered that Uta-Napishtim had escaped him he was furious and would have killed him. Ea persuaded Enlil that complete destruction of mankind was wrong. He said that only the men who had done wrong should be killed and not all mankind. Enlil was persuaded but still turned Uta-Napishtim into a god so that no man had escaped him.

The Mesopotamian stories contain many similarities to the biblical account. The flood marks a turning point in primeval history. It is brought on by divine decision as a punishment for man's sins against the gods. One man, the favorite of a god, is singled out for salvation. To save his family and representatives of all living creatures, he is to build a vessel caulked inside and out with pitch. The flood results with a rainstorm. After the devastation of the flood, the vessel comes to rest on a mountain peak. Birds are dispatched to discover whether dry land has appeared. When the hero leaves the boat he offers a sacrifice. The gods express their sorrow over what has happened. There are many other similarities that seem to resemble one another in certain general details but there are clear and unmistakable differences throughout.
Click to expand...

wouldn't Noah have been the Babylonian's ancestor as well as Abraham's?......
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ok. As long as he acklowedges he's using hypothetical characters to make some point about mideast religious history.
Click to expand...

who died and made you the dictator over what I choose to believe?.....have I caused you such great damage by choosing to believe that God once wiped out all of humanity except for a small number of faithful?.......isn't it interesting that almost all religions have similar tales regarding such an incident?.....and that the majority of them involve a flood?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
who died and made you the dictator over what I choose to believe?.....have I caused you such great damage by choosing to believe that God once wiped out all of humanity except for a small number of faithful?.......isn't it interesting that almost all religions have similar tales regarding such an incident?.....and that the majority of them involve a flood?......
Click to expand...

but you seemed to believe that there were no religions before judaism. I was educating your stupid monkey ass. You should be grateful.



Kneel before Zod!​
Zod.jpg
 
Mott the Hoople said:
ID....don't even go there. If you believe that the second law of thermodynamics discredits evolutionary theory then it only proves two points. #1. You don't understand the second law of thermodynamics and #2. You don't understand evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

She probably thinks entropy is some kind of an award for coming last!!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd picture.....WHY do you need multiple types of feline?....or equus....
Click to expand...

You're right. It seems entirely plausible that Noah could have just taken a couple lions, and then over the next few hundred years somehow cheetahs, tigers, ocelots, bobcats, and leopards could have evolved directly from lions. Lying liberal geneticists might have a problem with a viable, evolutionary population descending from the limited DNA pool of two single individuals - but we know how liberal scientists lie.


Excellent point PMP, and outstanding analysis.

Hey man, I'm assuming Noah's Ark was built somewhere in the middle east, and maybe you can provide me further enlightenment on this: how exactly did Noah get the north american bison, the south american lama, and the australian kangaroo to swim across thousands of miles of open ocean to get on his ark? Just wondering.

Thanks, professor.
 
Cypress said:
Lying liberal geneticists might have a problem with a viable, evolutionary population descending from the limited DNA pool of two single individuals - but we know how liberal scientists lie.
Click to expand...

good lord.....have you never stopped to think about the mechanics of evolution?......did you think that racoons came about because a hundred different mating pairs of their ancestors simultaneously were born with rings on their tails?......changes in species result because of a mutation in fetal development......likely they could ALL be tracked back to ONE mutation......
 
Cypress said:
Hey man, I'm assuming Noah's Ark was built somewhere in the middle east, and maybe you can provide me further enlightenment on this: how exactly did Noah get the north american bison, the south american lama, and the australian kangaroo to swim across thousands of miles of open ocean to get on his ark? Just wondering.

.
Click to expand...

why do you assume that there were bison in North America at the time the flood occurred?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Snowflakes and open systems??? DOH!

We, too, believe the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution. We have not used it on our web site because we haven’t found a way to explain it in a way that the general public can understand. These seven men give it a valiant try, and nearly succeed.

Science and Religion
Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally. Remember, the email from “P” challenged us,


But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?



What has religion got to do with science? We don’t even ask our members what their religious beliefs are, let alone snoop into the religious beliefs of scientists we only know by reputation. However, we are quite confident that Harun Yahya isn’t a “Bible Literalist.” The last two chapters of his excellent 20-chapter book, Evolution Deceit, urge the reader to accept the Islamic faith. Therefore, he can’t be a Bible Literalist, but that is beside the point.

We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)

Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution.



The problem is that thermodynamics is a one-semester mechanical engineering course that mechanical and electrical engineering students are generally required to take to graduate. Physics majors probably have to take it, too. It is a course that students usually try to put off until their junior or senior years because it is a tough course, which many students flunk.

To explain why the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution, one must rely on concepts appreciated only by people who have received a passing grade in thermodynamics. People who don’t understand thermodynamics make stupid counter-arguments about snowflakes or open systems.

Perhaps someday we will try to explain why the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the best we can do is recommend you read the essays in In Six Days written by the seven scientists mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into meaningless gibberish. The reader should refer to Chapter III of "Scientific Creationism," edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research for specific details. This chapter can be summed up as follows.

Creationist claims:


The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.

Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.

This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.

Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!

In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from God.


Comments on the above five claims:


The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!
Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
 
Ice Dancer said:
Snowflakes and open systems??? DOH!

We, too, believe the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution. We have not used it on our web site because we haven’t found a way to explain it in a way that the general public can understand. These seven men give it a valiant try, and nearly succeed.

Science and Religion
Evolutionists can’t seem to separate science from religion. They sometimes imply (or even state outright) that the scientists who reject evolution do so because religious brainwashing has prevented them from being able to think rationally. Remember, the email from “P” challenged us,


But can you name one scientist who (a) is not a "Bible Literalist" and who (b) rejects evolution and supports the "young earth" hypothesis?



What has religion got to do with science? We don’t even ask our members what their religious beliefs are, let alone snoop into the religious beliefs of scientists we only know by reputation. However, we are quite confident that Harun Yahya isn’t a “Bible Literalist.” The last two chapters of his excellent 20-chapter book, Evolution Deceit, urge the reader to accept the Islamic faith. Therefore, he can’t be a Bible Literalist, but that is beside the point.

We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)

Several of the scientists who wrote chapters for In Six Days say they were once atheistic evolutionists who didn’t accept Christianity and creation until after they realized that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt. Their rejection of evolution did not come from some Christian brainwashing which prevented them from thinking rationally. They rejected the theory because science evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution.



The problem is that thermodynamics is a one-semester mechanical engineering course that mechanical and electrical engineering students are generally required to take to graduate. Physics majors probably have to take it, too. It is a course that students usually try to put off until their junior or senior years because it is a tough course, which many students flunk.

To explain why the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution, one must rely on concepts appreciated only by people who have received a passing grade in thermodynamics. People who don’t understand thermodynamics make stupid counter-arguments about snowflakes or open systems.

Perhaps someday we will try to explain why the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the best we can do is recommend you read the essays in In Six Days written by the seven scientists mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Life creates order by increasing entropy elsewhere. This is very, very simple to understand, and does not require a college course in physics or thermodynamics.
 
Socrtease said:
Creationist arguments are often based on assuming that a scientific theory or law possesses an attribute that it does not, in fact, possess. The creationist thermodynamics argument is a typical example of how this technique is used to twist well established scientific principles into meaningless gibberish. The reader should refer to Chapter III of "Scientific Creationism," edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research for specific details. This chapter can be summed up as follows.

Creationist claims:


The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.

Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.

This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.

Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!

In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from God.


Comments on the above five claims:


The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!
Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
Click to expand...
It's even simpler then that. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems where the amount of matter/energy is finite. For example. The Universe is a closed system. The quantity of mater/energy within the universe is finite. The Earth is an open thermodynamic system. Energy is constantly transferred to the Earth from the sun. In this respect the claims by creationist that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect. The earth receives a constant stream of energy from the sun, which drives biological evolution. However, since the universe is a closed system, eventually the sun will run out of energy and then so will earth and in the sum total, entropy is preserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top