Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Happy New Year
Topic Started: Oct 4 2005, 12:56 AM (1,481 Views)
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Both religion and science propose ideas about how the earth and its inhabitants came to be. They both have things within their respective belief systems that cannot be definitely proven. The point I make as a science major is that the laws of Physics and many of the fundamental issues of science make leaps in what is known (the same as say Christianity) to what cannot be proven, to try and explain what we see and sometimes don't see in the known universe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
I've heard that a small bunch of bored scientists made up the M-brane theory during a longer train voyage. :D

What I love about scientists & science is, that they have actually historically managed to make fairly good prognostications (or shall we say prophecies) based on theories later proved to be wrong, and vice versa: they also manage to make false prophecies neatly based on correct theories :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Indeed that is all theory but i am not comfortable with the big bang being mixed up with more extreme theories like M-Brane.

Quote:
 
I ask you as 'the devils advocate' what other possible explaination could there be, unless for no apparent reason all the galaxies appeared from nowhere moving at massive speeds away from each other carefully measured to one single point in space and time.

*a few posts up*


Please read that post and tell me what possibly could prove that wrong?

Great post Cow, why didn't you say that earlier instead of sitting on the fence? ;)

Page_Marauder
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Ok it is a fact that all bodies in the universe are all moving at massive speeds away from a central point. We can PROVE this by using 'red-shift' (as light moves away from us it stretches turning slightly red, if it moves towards us it shifts slightly blue) to map all the glaxies we can see their speed, their trajectories, and more inmportantly thier origins..... the same place. This leaves no other explanation that there was an explosion of immense force with a massive amount of matter in the same exact point in space. 'The Big Bang'
There is no question as to if it happened, the question is how it happened.

Quote:
 
I will conclude by saying; all that i have said above are laws and processes of our universe and the physics that apply there.
If i see a car travelling along a road I can measure it's speed and it's direction of travel without making any further assumptions. I could not know how it moves, why it moves or any other detail for cirtain.
What i said above is purely and observation with no assumption
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Hey, even Christians believe in Big Bang......we too believe in a start to it all so the evidence that you Mar bring up backs up the biblical account of creation. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kay of Sauvage
Retired Knight
The biblical account of creation? Doesn't that say the world was created 4000 years ago?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Hey, even Christians believe in Big Bang......we too believe in a start to it all so the evidence that you Mar bring up backs up the biblical account of creation. 


Indeed, i thought the universe was created only 4000 years ago in christianity?
And what about that, 'god created everything in 7 days' thing? If i remember he spent one day making the universe and the next 5 making earth. ;)

All this talk is getting too broad spectrum. Let me go back to my point about proving one thing wrong and that discrediting the rest. We shall over look the obvious for now and concentrate on a single aspect.
Galahad, (and all others that agree with him) i propose i ask you a single question in each post and you answer that, in turn then asking your own question and i'll answer that.

Question 1: If the universe was made only 4000 years ago, how do you explain the fact we can actually look at galaxies that are older than this because of the simple fact; it took the light far longer than 4000 years to even reach us?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Good question.

First, the Bible does not say that the beginning was only 4k yrs ago....though some do think that. I will go ahead and take that position.

First, if God exists, then there would be no reason he/she/it could not make it all in 6 days. Right?

Second, to address the age deal....a few things there...

1. There is a biblical presedent from the git go that shows brand new creations looking older than they are. If there were an observer who was there after the 6 days it took, what would that person find? Well, you would see a garden with humans, animals, trees and plants that appear to be many years old. If a scientist did an experiment for age, they would conclude and age far greter than 1 day. So, looking at the universe, God would have had the light already reached earth so that they were visable. Again, if you allow for God, then this is not a problem.

2. There are many problems with current dating methods. One of the issues with it is that it has a presuppostion that the rate of absorbtion is constant...ie carbon 14. There are plenty of doubts that have been cast on this which are too numerous to xplain...feel free to google search. But, if the atmousphere changed significantly over time, then all these radiometric dating methods will be off quite a bit.

3. m-m-m-m-momma said so! momma dun lie! she says alligators are mean because they have all dem teeth and no thooth brush! :P

anywho.....there is some stuff. Have fun with it. ;)
Respectfully
Galahad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Your first point was well made and i thought about it for a while. Although i don't agree with it personally, i can see that to be a valid answer to nearly every question i was to put to you, if you began with the precedent that God exists.

Question 2: i. The idea of Adam and Eve suggests that all life came from two humans. Would that not make us hideously inbred? ii. How did humans spread to all four corners of the world before ocean going ships were 'invented'?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

2. I did know that about carbon dating, that's why i used the light from galaxies as an example instead. :P

3. Lol, i bet momma told you santa existed? ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Oh behave! ;) :lol:

As far as how did humans get so far with out ships.....all the continants were connected at one time. I think they call that Pangea or something...so no biggy there.

As far as inbreeding goes......pretty much you will have that problem even with evolution. A line of ape gives birth to a less ape more human...so on til actual human comes out...that couple will be producing the rest of the humans. (wonder what the chances are of having the miricle of giving birth to a new species happen at the same time and have male and female in same proximity) anyway....

Biblically speaking, the foirst 2 humans are perfect..so genetically, the offspring would be fine....and as the reatives multiply, you have less inbreeding anyway. Plus, the folks back then are not as far down the coping ladder as we are today so less faults. In otherwards....we are copies of copies of copies.........of copies.....u get the idea. Back then, they are all so close to the origional that the effect is not the same.

Hop[e that helps.
Respecfully
Galahad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caradoc of Mercia
Member Avatar
Knight
Well Pangea was a long, long, long time before humans evolved... think early dinosaurs. Humans spread throughout from what I understand the world mainly during the last ice age (or possibly a preceeding one) when sea levels were much lower, so there were land bridges between Asia and North America etc. Early Humans didn't have ships, but they still had small boats, that they used as well to get to other smaller places.

Quote:
 
As far as inbreeding goes......pretty much you will have that problem even with evolution. A line of ape gives birth to a less ape more human...so on til actual human comes out...that couple will be producing the rest of the humans. (wonder what the chances are of having the miricle of giving birth to a new species happen at the same time and have male and female in same proximity) anyway....


You totally cannot draw a real line where ape ended and human began. It's a gradual process. Having ideas like a "miracle birth" of the first human is just plain wrong. It would be some completely and utterly arbitrary which minute incremental change would count, to be completely meaningless.

Inbreeding is only really a problem in a very small community, where a genetic defect will end up getting shared by many. In a larger community, the defect would just die out in time, as there would be a larger group of more healthy individuals. There will always be a chance that a defect occurs, or is passed on, but this is smaller if only one has the defect, or neither. One thing though is that in genetic replication, errors do happen. This is why both genetic flaws and advantages can occur. It wouldn't really matter if two people had a "perfect" set of genes (this is a completely non-sensical statement for me though) as errors would occur at some stage of their breeding, or their descendants, and in a small population this would be rapidally propogated, as there would not yet exist a wide enough gene pool to filter this out.

As for the idea of genetic perfection, the idea that people could consider it, fills me more with revulsion than anything else. It is simply not possible to be perfect. You cannot have infinite intelligence, strength etc. but this has been a "motivational factor to get back to" for many people such as in Nazi Germany. To improve oneself is natural, to consider something perfect is most certainly not.

Evolution is all about gradual adaptation to ones environment, where random but small mutations do occur, if they turn out to be of benefit, then they have gained an evolutionary advantage that has traditionally meant they are more capable of producing more offspring. It has been said that Neanderthals were the most evolved Humans, as they were exceedingly well adapted to their environment, far more so than we, but they were unable to cope when it changed; their "perfection" was their undoing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
As far as how did humans get so far with out ships.....all the continants were connected at one time. I think they call that Pangea or something...so no biggy there.


Indeed that is so, but unfortunately that happened long before the bible suggests the world was created. At this time the world was occupied by dinosaurs, early dinosaurs at that. At the end of the Triassic era, Pangea started to drift apart.
All this is millions of years ago mate, you need to get a better idea of the huge time scales in question here. ;)

The bible really beggins to crumble over this issue.

Quote:
 
Plus, the folks back then are not as far down the coping ladder as we are today so less faults.

:lol: I like that!

But in all seriousness that implies we are 'devolving' in some way and goes against all the science of natural selection. That could also imply that the copy gets worse and worse untill humanity is a stagnent lump.

(In fact i believe it already has, but that's another issue) :P

Yours respectfully, and in good humour,
Page_Marauder
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

lol :lol:

We are posting on top of each other again... You got there first. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Take a quick look at this.

Not a perfect example but all i could find within a few minutes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kay of Sauvage
Retired Knight
Quote:
 
2. There are many problems with current dating methods. One of the issues with it is that it has a presuppostion that the rate of absorbtion is constant...ie carbon 14. There are plenty of doubts that have been cast on this which are too numerous to xplain...feel free to google search. But, if the atmousphere changed significantly over time, then all these radiometric dating methods will be off quite a bit.


Um, if you're talking over the period of 4000 years, there would be barely any changes in atmosphere nor would pangea have become 7 continents in that time :lol:

And if you look at evidence that points to millions and billions of years of existence, such as the light from stars, the buried fossils, layers and layers of hardened lava, etc, then the obvious answer is that these things show that this world is older than 4000 years. The answer you're giving is that God put all these misleading things in place on purpose to mislead us (or why else would he do it)... which only causes us to doubt that God exists. So apparently, he doesn't want us to know he exists...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Ok...lets see where to start....

1. Mar....you have a presupposition of millions and millions of years, I don't. The Bible has a place in it where the world was connected in one mass then was split and everyone was given different languages. Now, I know you believe that, but the point is, you are sorta in a circular reasoning there a lil M8. Your proving your point of the age of the earth/universe by using just that presupposition as to when Pangea was. We can all agree that there was a Pangea, but the timing is in question. The bible gives a reasonable story given the belief in God to begin with.

2. Cow.... A couple of things....I am not proposing to create a master race :lol: , just saying that if Adam and Eve were the first 2 humans by God in the Biblical account,then they were perfect. But as far as gradually evolving, the evidence seems kinda weak, even to evolutionists like Gould(who i spoke to semi-privately) who is an Atheist...

Quote:
 
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127


3. Mar...I am not saying that we are de-evolving, but you gotta admit that there seem to be more problems with humans disease wise and just health wise than 100 yrs ago. We seem less hearty. But at any rate.....if evolution is the gaiining of information, than de-evolution would be the losing of information...and that I am not saying.

Now, speaking of information....where in the world did information on dna come from. It's a statistical fact that dna couldn't have developed via evolution randomly. Here is the father of DNA in his own words...

Quote:
 
Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 51-2
“If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?
“This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20200 and is approximately equal to 10260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros.
“ Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense. The great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.”
p. 88 “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”


As far as our discussion about where did the initial energy come from, here is Asimov on that...

Quote:
 
Asimov, Isaac, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal (June 1970), p. 6
“To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’
“ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make


I could go on and on...but for now I guess you get my point.......some of this stuff reqires faith I don't have enough of. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Quote:
 
Dr. Richard Dawkins regarding the "Cambrian Explosion": "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p. 229.


I can't vouch for this, but it looks interesting......should make one think.

Quote:
 
The Nature of the Fossil Record.
*95% of the fossils (by number) consist of shallow marine organisms (e.g. corals, shellfish)
*Of the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils (including the coal) and all the other invertebrate fossils (e.g. insects)
*5% of the 5% (or 0.25% of the entire fossil record) are the vertebrate fossils (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)
*only 1% of this 0.25% (or 0.0025% of the entire fossil record) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! (e.g. there are only about 2,100 dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums.)

From a lecture given by Kurt Wise at ICR brown bag. Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr. John Morris vouch for it. These statistics are not from one source, but a compilation from many.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Ok, firstly.. I appreciate the effort that went in to explaining that. I feel i am getting a real insight into your faith. All other christians i have had this conversation with were not prepared to be cross examined in any way. Thankyou.

Alas, i must pick you up on a few points, firstly: Pangea could not have existed that short a time a go. If it were the case, and the techtonic plates shifted that quickly, the seismic activity on this planet would be inhospitable to life. Earthquakes even now are levelling cities at this incredibly slow pace.
Quote:
 
Now, I know you believe that, but the point is, you are sorta in a circular reasoning there a lil M8. Your proving your point of the age of the earth/universe by using just that presupposition as to when Pangea was.

I get your point and have pondered it.... But i must say the evidence of this is almost overwhelming and i must accept that as fact. Any other possible explaination involving it moving apart very quickly then slowing just doesn't fit. You must also consider the diverse flora and fauna on these different continents.

In short, without further evidence a must except the only logical conclusion and as Kay said above;
Quote:
 
God put all these misleading things in place on purpose to mislead us
doesn't lie well with me either.

To finish, may i make one suggestion. A word in your defense could be that the bible is simply wrong, not the word of your god.

Page_Marauder

Ps. Pandemics are a product of our modern world with people and goods moving all over the place. If in the time of the Black Death we had air frieght etc, then two thirds of the population of earth would have died, not just europe. And as you say, we are less 'hearty' becasue of the physical lethargy are modern world allows.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Asimov, Isaac, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal (June 1970), p. 6
“To express all this, we can say: ‘Energy can be transferred from one place to another, or transformed from one form to another, but it can be neither created nor destroyed.’ Or we can put it another way: ‘The total quantity of energy in the universe is constant.’
“ This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make


That is exactly what i was explaining above when i said that ALL the energy created in the big bang is still here (no more no less) It has just condensed in to matter.
The last quote you made, i fail to see the relevance? (interesting though)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
To finish, may i make one suggestion. A word in your defense could be that the bible is simply wrong, not the word of your god.


Or the explanation that science gives us for various phenomenom could be wrong....

For instance in physics the second Law of Thermodynamics talks about a systems disorder known as entropy, and that a systems entropy tends to increase over time. A very simple example would be say a yard full of leaves. You wouldnt expect to leave it for any length of time and come back and find all the leaves in say 2 neat piles. Conversely you would not expect to rake your yard, leave for a week, then come back to the yard and find those same 2 neat piles exactly as they were. As a matter of fact the longer you leave those 2 piles, the more disorganised you would expect them to get right? The second Law tells us that systems do not tend to order but disorder.

The same should be said for the Earth regarding evolution, yet evolutionary theory would have us believe just the opposite, that out of complete disorder came order. That out of inanimate elements and matter, came perfectly ordered life, bio-systems, and ecologies etc... A good analogy would be to leave a pile of scrap metal, and plastics and then come back in 1 million years. If you could come back in a 1 million years or so, would you expect to find a space shuttle out of that same pile of material? How about if you came back in a hundred million years? He He hardly. :P Yet evolution tells us that the human body which is countless times more complex than a Space Shuttle somehow evolved from inamimate elements and disorder. Think about it.... :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kay of Sauvage
Retired Knight
Again, charlemagne, that is like the computer example. You're really forcing this example based on a generalization that does not apply to this example. And it's not that a human had to be created through random chance. It's that a microscopic organism that simply has the ability to grow and divide can be created through hundreds of millions years on a planet which is one of the few with conditions that would allow life. Once you have that little life invisible to the eye multiplying across the world, it won't be long before one has a little "accident" that makes it more complex. Even today, we talk about virus's or bacteria that mutate and become harder to cure. And these disease would probably be much less common than the first life that would spread across the oceans.

I mean, statistics even say that the odds are that there are other planets with life, not just earth. Before we had a space shuttle, we need rockets and computers, and before that we need to have wires, electricity, tools, etc. A caveman using a stick or a rock was the first step to your space shuttle... Not that big of a deal now was it? and it only took em how long to get a space shuttle after that? 10,000 years or so?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
And it's not that a human had to be created through random chance.


It's exactly that and that goes against one one of the 4 fundamental laws of
thermodynamics. Be it incrementaly or not, the understood principle of entropy or disorder is that systems move toward an increased state of disorder (incrementally) rather than order. The idea that something as complex as say the human body, and the worlds ecosystems would "evolve" over say 1 hundred million years from complete disorder (the big bang) is as hard to conceive and believe as the example I gave of a space shuttle "evolving" from a pile of metal and plastic in the same time....

Quote:
 
It's that a microscopic organism that simply has the ability to grow and divide can be created through hundreds of millions years on a planet which is one of the few with conditions that would allow life.


Its much more than that Kay. Its that almost perfect order came out of complete disorder, and that life came from that disorder and from the inanimate. The very idea of such a thing goes against what Physics holds true according to one of it's fundamental laws. Also remember that this planet that has

conditions that would allow life

also came from complete chaos. So basically you have chaos and disorder after the big bang, and somehow our whole world defies what science currently considers fundamental physics with regards to entropy and disorder and delopes a perfectly balanced ecosystem with hugely complex life forms, many of which are interdependant on each other.

For example one of the things I especially find awesome is how plants and trees breathe out oxygen and breathe in carbon dioxide forming a perfect symbiosis with man and animals with regards to necessary gases, in helping to replenish the Earth's oxygen supply. Really quite remarkable. Or take the sonar of the common bat that not only uses reflected sound to locate objects and ascertain correct distance to maneuver in complete darkness, but also has the internal aparatus necessary to calculate minute changes to the speed of sound as the humidity changes from say a light sprinkle to a decent rain.... Incredible!!!

Things like this are why people call it Intelligent Design.... :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
A caveman using a stick or a rock was the first step to your space shuttle... Not that big of a deal now was it? and it only took em how long to get a space shuttle after that? 10,000 years or so?

Nicely put, i rest my case. (reminds of Space Od 2001) ;)

Careful with those analogies Charlemagne i could use them against you. Say if we introduce wind to the 'yard' then we will often find leaves stacked in to neat little piles due to the eddies. I could also talk about all that misplaced matter (dust) floating in the air of your front room becoming nice and orderly upon your TV screen. How about snow flakes eh? Very nice and orderly if you ask me. ;)

Page_Marauder.

Ps. In fact if we leave those leaves long enough they will decompose and enrich the soil becoming an extremely 'organised' flower.

Nice post though Charlie, thx for the input. Let's hear some more.. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Gah posting on top of each other.. again :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Hey Mar....maybe this would help concerning your analogies of dust and snowflakes...

Are either one of those doing anything but what they naturally do? Dust settles because of gravity, snowflakes are made naturally without any outside involvment, water naturally becomes a snow flake. It has not morphed into something other than water...its just frozen. I remember one scientist saying that if he saw a knitted snowflake he would know that the yarn without outside help would not have made a snowflake shape and thus there was intervention...a desgner.

Entropy in nature means that those things that are orderly at the moment are becoming dissordered unless acted on by an outside force. Like your car will rust if you leave it alone long enough...and further still it will start decomposing. But if the owner steps in and either prevents that with maintanence or restores a broken down heap, then entropy is reversed....but only because an outside force has stepped in.

So, if we go back in time to the first matter...no matter what miricle had to happen to make it inthe first place, you will find that the more and more things start bonding, unless an outside force keeps it together, it will naturally go and break apart. Order does not come naturally, only disorder does. If order is present, then an outside force must be there too.

You mentioned the flower will arise out of the dead leaves, but the flower cannot go beyond what the DNA inside of it tells it to. If the DNA says it will only be 2 feet tall, then it cannot go beyond that. New informatiom must be added to the DNA for it to evolve into anything else.

So the essence of Evolution is going against it. The simple are becoming complex naturally. That cannot happen.

Some say that the mechanism to this new information are mutations....but those are almost always damaging adn resulting in a lose of information...never ever gaining new helpful information. Can humans tinker with genertics....u bettcha...but they are an outside force.

So you look at some animal....ther're genetics have limitations to them. A dog will only get so big.

So go way back to the first matter again....it has to violate the First Law of Thgermo Dynamics that says energy can be neither created nor destroyed...well...in Naturalist Big Bang Cosmology, Energy is created outa nothing at some point...then it remains constant. Can't happen.

Then that matter and energy starts becoming more complex naturally....can't happen because of the Second Law.

then you have nonliving matter coming alive naturally...again...no chance with entropy. I mean, ig i squished a frog and killed it and let it sit around for eons of time, would there be any chance it would naturally become living again? And thats giving the project a massive head start...all the materials needed are there from the start.

Anyway.....these are leaps of faith Christians would contend. Thats all. I dun want to hog the forum.

Respectfully
Galahad

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flintoff of Lancashire
Member Avatar
Retired Knight
WOW! to heavy for me! *runs and hides* :o :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Argetlam

follows flint to find a trench to hide in
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Considering entropy, Earth is not an independent system, and there are no independent systems on it. Everything here is sustained by obvious outside forces, and if you think of it, sunlight probably played a great role in early evolution as well.

BTW. Does anyone know how exactly DNA is copied? Perhaps that could bring in some interesting points about the creation of life.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bedivere of Neustia
Member Avatar
Retired Knight
actually earth is considered an interdependant ecosystem by most scientists sunlight well coming from outside of the earth is takin through our own atmosspehere and considerd part of our system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Yea Dinadan, its a good point you raise ;) The whole Entropy issue is only valid if our system is closed, which scientists, that is an ongoing debate.

But I would respectfully submit that if there was a beginning like the Big Bang, then the universe is closed because the limits of the universe are streatching as it expands. There would be nothing natural coming from the outside to be the needed power to reverse Entropy. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
But you were not talking about entropy (defection) syndroms regarding the universe. The theory doesn't say no order is being made at all, it is about the general entropy level in a system.

If the Sun is part of the system, the large amount of energy leaving the system will give you the rise in entropy you are looking for. Not to mention that the system will probably self-destruct.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Considering entropy, Earth is not an independent system, and there are no independent systems on it.


But our solar system would be considered a closed system, and even in that you see it moving against the the accepted forces of entropy. With regards to energy in any reactions leading to more complex compounds there needs be a catalyst or energy source. As was discuseed earlier the total energy in a system cannot increase, nor can reactions occur that lead to more complex compounds without a catalyst, so something huge is missing with regards to what is considered accepted fundamentals of science, for all this complexity to develop.

I would propose to you that the missing catalyst is the Allmighty... :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Quote:
 
But you were not talking about entropy (defection) syndroms regarding the universe. The theory doesn't say no order is being made at all, it is about the general entropy level in a system.

If the Sun is part of the system, the large amount of energy leaving the system will give you the rise in entropy you are looking for. Not to mention that the system will probably self-destruct.


OK, I think I see what your saying here...that Entropy isn't saying that there is no order being made....Order is being made according to your view of Entropy.

Yet, how could that be? That goes against the Law. Naturally speaking, systems go to disorder...not to order. Unless acted on by an outside force. There doesn't seem to be in nature anything that contradicts this. the snowflake has been used, but that is not doing anything more than what water does naturally. It freezes and forms these shapes. But that is not an example of evolution. It will not become anything but water as a result of its freezing.

Are you and Sox both saying that we are in an Open system or a closed system? I am not sure of that.

You mentiones DNA replication Dinadan, I am sure that would be interesting...actually....did you see my post of a quote from the "father of DNA" Crick...the founder of it...about the chances of it being formed natrually? It was impossible to him...he said a Miracle! Evolution..in his eyes, could not have produced it. :D We can always start from there on that.eh.
Respectfully
galahad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
I don't see how you can think our "closed" solar system is "moving against the accepted forces of entropy" when every second passing moves it closer to the point where the Sun will self-destruct. This system is not getting more complex as a whole, only those parts of it, that are well supplied with catalysts provided by other parts...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic »
Add Reply

The Round Table Knights