yeah, it was really him spouting off his mouth about the 2nd law of thermo that forced my hand

10/26/2005 3:59:11 PM

Quote :

"If people believe that God created the world or at least helped it along, it's not my place to judge them. However, I personally think it's ridiculous that evolution isn't as widely embraced by the American public, and if somebody tries to tell me that creationism is correct they can forget about me taking them seriously. "

Yeah, and I'm sure they'll be crying themselves to sleep that you "don't take them seriously." It hurts to have delusional people who think monkeys turn into humans feel that way about you.

Tears are welling up in my eyes right now thinking about how you evolutionists out there who don't believe in a Creator don't "take me seriously" and think I'm a "joke."

BUWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

10/26/2005 3:59:47 PM

Quote :

"Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved."

the theory of evolution doesnt speculate on if god guided the process or if god was involved

so this poll is meaningless

10/26/2005 4:00:05 PM

Quote :

"It hurts to have delusional people who think monkeys turn into humans feel that way about you. "

hey, the article talks about that too

WHAT DO YA KNOW?

10/26/2005 4:00:37 PM

Since when does the big bang = evolution?

10/26/2005 4:02:12 PM

Quote :

"It hurts to have delusional people who think monkeys turn into humans feel that way about you."

Another misconception you have about evolution. I thought that you had researched it?

Quote :

"you evolutionists out there who don't believe in a Creator"

So do you think that all people who believe in evolution are atheists?

10/26/2005 4:03:28 PM

^^

well, for us that don't like the partition so much, it's all one big deal we like to call

SCIENCE

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 4:03:43 PM

Quote :

"You post articles that present the same stale arguments against evolution. Nastoute posted an article that was written as a rebuttle to those stale arguments. You aren't proving anything or convincing anyone. You're going to have to actually defend your claims instead of relying on other people's writing along with cut and paste. "

The article/book I referenced and posted DOES ADDRESS the arguments made in the article nastoute posted.

As far as convincing people, clearly you pro-evolution guys have the work to do. Not me. 85% of Americans apparantly believe in a Creator, while only 15% don't.

As for saying I can't cut and paste...ridiculous. And why don't you hold nastoute to that same standard?

10/26/2005 4:04:27 PM

i was just trying to help

10/26/2005 4:05:13 PM

also

you're kind of a whiner

10/26/2005 4:06:18 PM

Trying to make people believe there isn't a Creator isn't helping anyone.

10/26/2005 4:06:33 PM

Quote :

"As far as convincing people, clearly you pro-evolution guys have the work to do. Not me. 85% of Americans apparantly believe in a Creator, while only 15% don't."

So do you think that all people who believe in evolution are atheists?

Quote :

"As for saying I can't cut and paste...ridiculous. And why don't you hold nastoute to that same standard?"

You post articles that present the same stale arguments against evolution. Nastoute posted an article that was written as a rebuttle to those stale arguments.

10/26/2005 4:06:36 PM

Quote :

"As far as convincing people, clearly you pro-evolution guys have the work to do. Not me. 85% of Americans apparantly believe in a Creator, while only 15% don't. "

so its ok as long as the majority thinks that way too?

need i bring up a flat vs round earth?

10/26/2005 4:07:16 PM

the earth

IS FAT

10/26/2005 4:07:39 PM

Quote :

"You post articles that present the same stale arguments against evolution. Nastoute posted an article that was written as a rebuttle to those stale arguments."

The article I posted is a rebuttal to the "stale" arguments presented in the article nastoute posted.

Got that?

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:09 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 4:08:19 PM

you really should read what I posted

10/26/2005 4:09:38 PM

you should read the book I posted

10/26/2005 4:10:16 PM

No, it isn't at all. Did you even read nastoute's article? Or did you immediately disregard it as "crap" when you realized that it contradicted your beliefs?

10/26/2005 4:11:20 PM

Did you even read the book I posted, Mr. Joshua?

Or did you immediately disregard it as "crap" when you realized that it contradicted your beliefs?


[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:12 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 4:12:16 PM

actually, it doesn't matter if you read it

it's good enough that the article is here for others to read

so they can understand exactly what it is you are doing

10/26/2005 4:13:18 PM

^^stop answering questions with questions

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:13 PM. Reason : fg]

10/26/2005 4:13:24 PM

I've read neither.
I think I shall.

10/26/2005 4:13:38 PM

Yes, I read it. As an open minded individual, I examine all sides of an issue. You should try it out.

10/26/2005 4:16:12 PM

Quote :

"nastoute All American 16338 Posts user info edit post you really should read what I posted 10/26/2005 2:50:32 PM salisburyboy All American 6437 Posts user info edit post You actually intended people to read that? 10/26/2005 2:51:02 PM"

is this irony? im never sure if i'm using irony right

10/26/2005 4:20:22 PM

2nd law of thermodynamics...

Quote :

"The energy level of the universe is known to be running down. Energy goes from higher levels to lower levels, from higher temperatures to lower temperatures, from usable forms to unusable forms, and never in the opposite direction. Material can be changed to another form of energy, such as in an atomic explosion. Such changes are always downward in level. This is called the second law of thermodynamics in physics, chemistry and engineering. The universe is going toward its heat death. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy-material is neither being created nor destroyed now, but only changing form and level. Every change in the energy-material universe is toward a lower level, which is the second law of thermodynamics. The universe is running down. If the energy-material universe had always existed, it would have already run down to the heat death of the universe. Since it has not done this, we know that the energy-material universe has not always existed. The energy-material universe had a beginning. http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Lockwood/Germaine/Charles/1930/Cosmos/ch02.html "

A beginning. A "creation" we could say.

Don't even secular scientists admit the universe has an age? I thought so.

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:23 PM. Reason : 2]

10/26/2005 4:22:34 PM

uhh

you mean the big bang?

yeah about 10-20 billion years, probably more refined by now though

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2005 4:24:07 PM

Quote :

"Since when does the big bang = evolution? "

10/26/2005 4:24:46 PM

From Nastoute's article:

Quote :

"9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered overtime. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

Its obvious that you won't even consider anything contrary to your belief structure.

10/26/2005 4:25:22 PM

Quote :

"There is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the best solution is that the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/197.asp"

10/26/2005 4:26:20 PM

what the hell is this dude saying?

i'm all types of confused

10/26/2005 4:26:55 PM

Quote :

"nastoute All American 16338 Posts user info edit post you really should read what I posted 10/26/2005 2:50:32 PM salisburyboy All American 6437 Posts user info edit post You actually intended people to read that? 10/26/2005 2:51:02 PM"

is this irony? im never sure if i'm using irony right

10/26/2005 4:27:55 PM

THE MAJORITY BELIEVE IT, IT MUST BE TRUE!

10/26/2005 4:28:04 PM

Quote :

"This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

Damn son.

10/26/2005 4:28:31 PM

THE UNIVERSE IS A CLOSED SYSTEM. IT IS NOT INFINITE IN SIZE.

THEREFORE, THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS APPLIES.

DAMN SON.

10/26/2005 4:32:14 PM

I guess I have to keep reposting this until you can comprehend it.

Quote :

"More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales."

10/26/2005 4:34:05 PM

Oh, I comprehend it quite well. Do you comprehend that the universe is a closed system?


Recent book by an anthropology professor admits the problem with no "transitional fossils".

OMG! This is a "mainstream" source too!

http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp

Quote :

"'Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species' by Jeffrey H. Schwartz [...] A recurring theme in that conversation is one that creation scientists often seize upon. If life evolves gradually, where are all the “missing links”? Although that term conjures images of “ape-men,” the challenge to the theory is much more serious than that. The fossil record is riddled with gaps. [...] “Given the potential of homeobox genes to be fully rather than partially expressed,” Schwartz concludes, “we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist.”"

Boy, it must really hurt for you evilutionists to read that. AVERT YOUR EYES!


[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:40 PM. Reason : 2]

10/26/2005 4:37:58 PM

aren't we still on the 2nd Law?

10/26/2005 4:38:28 PM

OMG INCOMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD

good thing that was one of the problems they taught us when we learned about the theory

10/26/2005 4:41:25 PM

^
Merely "incomplete"? That's an understatment.

HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT NO REAL "TRANSITIONAL" FOSSILS EXIST. NONE. ZERO.

Why don't we talk about how the anthropology professor admitted that no "transitional" fossils exist?

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:43 PM. Reason : 1]

10/26/2005 4:42:29 PM

Quote :

"OMG! This is a "mainstream" source too! "

thats a book review in a newspaper....not a "source". give me a break.

[Edited on October 26, 2005 at 4:43 PM. Reason : j]

10/26/2005 4:42:47 PM

the who?

10/26/2005 4:42:56 PM

Quote :

"Why don't we talk about how the anthropology professor admitted that no "transitional" fossils exist?"

because its a point most people concede to and doesn't completely negate the theory

10/26/2005 4:43:32 PM

The universe is a closed system. However, you fail to comprehend the second law of thermodynamics as it is applied to the universe.

Please reread:

Quote :

"More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales."

10/26/2005 4:44:40 PM

Quote :

"thats a book review in a newspaper. give me a break."

Yeeeahh...and you don't think I know that?

Some journalist isn't saying that no transitional fossils exist. It's Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a university of Pittsburgh anthropology professor who is saying it.

10/26/2005 4:45:56 PM

it would be great if the universe wasn't really a closed system

you know

FREE ENERGY AND ALL

10/26/2005 4:46:29 PM

^^

who?

10/26/2005 4:46:58 PM

id leave my lights on all the time and never turn off the shower

10/26/2005 4:47:31 PM

it would be christmas 365 days a year

10/26/2005 4:48:13 PM

Quote :

"It's Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a university of Pittsburgh anthropology professor who is saying it."

Sounds like a jew. Better watch out!

10/26/2005 4:48:39 PM

Quote :

"Yeeeahh...and you don't think I know that? Some journalist isn't saying that no transitional fossils exist. It's Jeffrey H. Schwartz, a university of Pittsburgh anthropology professor who is saying it. "

then why are you calling it mainstream?

10/26/2005 4:48:42 PM