Celtic Heroes

Ok: first off, any objections you may have about the bible being credible have probably been asked(and answered) already. One book that may answer a lot of your question is "Evidence that demands a verdict". I think its by Josh McDowell.

Second: magixal it doesn't seem to me that you know what the laws of thermodynamics are. Yes they apply to hear but they apply to many other things as well. I should point out that creations fits perfectly with both laws. For instance creation says that everything is decaying or getting worse. It also says that no energy can be created or destroyed; that it can just change form.

Ok lets review the laws of thermodynamics as quoted from unlocking the mysteries of creation: first law: energy is conserved. All existing processes of nature merely change energy from one form to another. In nature, energy is neither created or destroyed. Matter itself(which is potential atomic energy) maintained at a constant level. Processes change matter and energy from one form to others but the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Okay lets stop for a moment. (This is me again). Lets say the molecule is eternal. If it was then the energy in the universe would be all used up and we would be dead. Even if the molecule was not eternal the world would be a lot closer to a heat death than it is. Okay back to unlocking creation: Second law: energy dissipates. As processes in natural energy occur, the total energy reservoir is reduced to simpler life forms with a consequent increase in what has been termed entropy. As energy is used it becomes less available for further use. Part of the energy spent to produce something is always lost by radiation, friction, or other effects. It becomes non-recoverable heat dissipating in space. Ultimately, as things are going, the entire universe will end up being filled with a stagnant mass of low level heat energy.
Okay back to me: evolutionists say things are going up: a true law of science says that as things go on they go down. I think i heard that you are right vraelen;(not sure and im to lazy to grab another science book; i have two open in front of me lol) there might be a slight chance to overcome one of the laws of thermodynamics(on second thought i will get it). Ok yeah there could be a chance that you could overcome the second law but it is about as likely that a bunch of monkeys on typewriters could reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare without error 15 quadrillion times in a row.


And plus3, to me it still sounds as if ur trying to make excuses not to have to debate his points.

the cells are just as un-intelligent as you. Your brain is a combination of cells. Ergo u just called itself stupid. nice mate.

I didn't say you can make the choice btw. Your body alters and if the gene is useful. It passes on if not it dies out. Simple

Yes, the cells themselves are not very smart, but its not the cells that give you your smarts, its your mind and conscience. So no, I did not call myself stupid. It is all the living cells combined that makes another living being, and that makes the male or female.

I know that I cannot control evolution with my own mind, what I was saying is how do your cells know if something is useful? They are not innovative thinking beings like us even though we are made of them. So how would they know? Doesn't seem so simple.

No where did. I say Atheism is a religion.

Also, I'm not closed minded. I respond to the whole post of yours and take things into consideration but you are answering parts and only parts. I think you are a rebellious teen who just can't handle someone controlling him. Of another Adult being there. Same for you Plus3 - teen part.

The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict evolution, but they do contradict the big bang.

The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict evolution, but they do contradict the big bang.

I will eventually get to everyone above but I am currently reading about the above idea.

The majority of the scientific community, and that is by no means a super majority but well above , actually find that the laws of thermodynamics does not contradict the Big Bang. Again, I am not a physicist but here is the explanation from what I understand.

The Big Bang theory states that there was a sudden burst of energy and matter that began expanding since the dawn of time and is still expanding at an unknown rate. Therefore, even as the entropy increases, the size of the universe also increases to accommodate this, and many other, changes.

Think of it like a party in one room of the house (a house that could expand indefinitely I suppose). More and more people come, rearrange themselves in the room, and it becomes more and more disordered. However, this house is constantly Getty new editions and as the party goes on, people move into other rooms of the house and diffuse. The amount of entropy (people) can stay the same or increase but there will always be enough room to accommodate them in a house that is constantly expanding.

Here is a better explanation from Mano Singham:
"In more technical terms, if we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R. Thus even if the initial universe was at maximum entropy for its size, as the universe expands its entropy can increase while still being easily able to accommodate the increasing order we see. In fact, calculations done assuming that there exist ten planets per star, 100 billion stars for every galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (which are our best current estimates) show that the ordering of the planets produces changes in entropy of only one part in 1011 of the total current entropy."

With that explanation, yes, we are heading towards an increasing disorder and randomness but the universe is continuously expanding as well. Therefore, we can see an increase in order and entropy within the universe that can go on indefinitely unless the universe can only expand to a certain amount, at which point, the best guess is that the universe would simply collapse into another super dense particle. We obviously have not reached that point though.

The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict evolution, but they do contradict the big bang.

I will eventually get to everyone above but I am currently reading about the above idea.

The majority of the scientific community, and that is by no means a super majority but well above , actually find that the laws of thermodynamics does not contradict the Big Bang. Again, I am not a physicist but here is the explanation from what I understand.

The Big Bang theory states that there was a sudden burst of energy and matter that began expanding since the dawn of time and is still expanding at an unknown rate. Therefore, even as the entropy increases, the size of the universe also increases to accommodate this, and many other, changes.

Think of it like a party in one room of the house (a house that could expand indefinitely I suppose). More and more people come, rearrange themselves in the room, and it becomes more and more disordered. However, this house is constantly Getty new editions and as the party goes on, people move into other rooms of the house and diffuse. The amount of entropy (people) can stay the same or increase but there will always be enough room to accommodate them in a house that is constantly expanding.

Here is a better explanation from Mano Singham:
"In more technical terms, if we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R. Thus even if the initial universe was at maximum entropy for its size, as the universe expands its entropy can increase while still being easily able to accommodate the increasing order we see. In fact, calculations done assuming that there exist ten planets per star, 100 billion stars for every galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (which are our best current estimates) show that the ordering of the planets produces changes in entropy of only one part in 1011 of the total current entropy."

With that explanation, yes, we are heading towards an increasing disorder and randomness but the universe is continuously expanding as well. Therefore, we can see an increase in order and entropy within the universe that can go on indefinitely unless the universe can only expand to a certain amount, at which point, the best guess is that the universe would simply collapse into another super dense particle. We obviously have not reached that point though.

Ok. First off, you only addressed one of the laws of thermodynamics. There are people much better qualified than me to argue the above point and if you want a good argument you should probably look elsewhere as(just assuming) while the people arguing here may be smart we are not scientists. But as i have already stated, while evolution may make a guess or even have a half-way decent explanation for the laws of thermodynamics, creationism and more specifically the bible would expect if not predict it.
Second off, no one has really addressed my points about geologic clocks. Almost all of them point to a time-period of about 6-10 thousand years, a timeframe that would suit creationism perfectly( side-note: while evolution needs long periods of time to really be even close to plausible, creationism can work with long periods and short periods of time. This means that even if you prove that the earth is old it does not prove creationism wrong). You may say that geologic clock really on all conditions to stay the same. Well really so does evolution. (Anyone heard the word uniformitarism(sp?)). Carbon dating(one of the few geologic clocks that agree with evolution) needs conditions to stay the same to be accurate. Even if carbon dating is accurate(which i have good reason to believe it is not) it does not agree with the geologic ages.

No matter how this debate turns out, i have respect for you Vrealen. You are one of the only ones of my opponents who really wants to know the truth and tries to keep name calling out of it. I hope you do come to see the truth. Lol.

the cells are just as un-intelligent as you. Your brain is a combination of cells. Ergo u just called itself stupid. nice mate.

I didn't say you can make the choice btw. Your body alters and if the gene is useful. It passes on if not it dies out. Simple

Yes, the cells themselves are not very smart, but its not the cells that give you your smarts, its your mind and conscience. So no, I did not call myself stupid. It is all the living cells combined that makes another living being, and that makes the male or female.

I know that I cannot control evolution with my own mind, what I was saying is how do your cells know if something is useful? They are not innovative thinking beings like us even though we are made of them. So how would they know? Doesn't seem so simple.

Well, the thought process of a cell knowing if something is useful or being innovative, is too simple. As I said earlier, there is no conscious effort of any kind. No directions, blueprint, DNA sequence, etc, at all. The main concept of evolution falls on natural selection.

Natural selection is based on variation in traits, differential reproduction, and heredity; all of which are based on DNA. Some differences have a negligible impact and will simply remain in the gene poll because it does not do anything to affect how an organism can reproduce. For example, a variance in size. If an organism is too small or too big, they will get caught by a predator. However, most organisms are not restricted to an exact size and there is no reason to narrow it down. A better example can be found in specifically humans: the tailbone. It does not hinder us nor does it help us. We are no more smarter or agile with or without it. Therefore, it stays with us.

Now I will guess that the idea that there must be some intelligence in cells arises from the word "selection." That is, however, just a nice cheesy way to describe a complicated process though. A process that we still do not fully understand. Selection involves what I explained above, the differences in traits. Traits that do impact an organism.

Let's take the giraffe for example. Their ancestors presumably had much shorter necks. One of the most compelling facts that has lead to this assumption is the fact that they have just as many vertebrae in their neck as a human, which is seven. They may have migrated to a new area with higher trees or perhaps over time only the tallest plants survived. Now, by chance, one giraffe ancestor is born with a taller head than most but it can now reach the higher trees and be better off than the others. Most importantly, it has a better chance to spread this mutation when it reproduces.

So, with a combination of taller trees and various other conditions, the giraffes with shorter necks slowly fade away as the gene for a longer neck allows a giraffe to be more successful and even out compete giraffes with shorter necks.. That is why we say selection because in a way, nature "selects" that gene to carry on due to changing conditions.

I hope this helps.

the cells are just as un-intelligent as you. Your brain is a combination of cells. Ergo u just called itself stupid. nice mate.

I didn't say you can make the choice btw. Your body alters and if the gene is useful. It passes on if not it dies out. Simple

Yes, the cells themselves are not very smart, but its not the cells that give you your smarts, its your mind and conscience. So no, I did not call myself stupid. It is all the living cells combined that makes another living being, and that makes the male or female.

I know that I cannot control evolution with my own mind, what I was saying is how do your cells know if something is useful? They are not innovative thinking beings like us even though we are made of them. So how would they know? Doesn't seem so simple.

Well, the thought process of a cell knowing if something is useful or being innovative, is too simple. As I said earlier, there is no conscious effort of any kind. No directions, blueprint, DNA sequence, etc, at all. The main concept of evolution falls on natural selection.

Natural selection is based on variation in traits, differential reproduction, and heredity; all of which are based on DNA. Some differences have a negligible impact and will simply remain in the gene poll because it does not do anything to affect how an organism can reproduce. For example, a variance in size. If an organism is too small or too big, they will get caught by a predator. However, most organisms are not restricted to an exact size and there is no reason to narrow it down. A better example can be found in specifically humans: the tailbone. It does not hinder us nor does it help us. We are no more smarter or agile with or without it. Therefore, it stays with us.

Now I will guess that the idea that there must be some intelligence in cells arises from the word "selection." That is, however, just a nice cheesy way to describe a complicated process though. A process that we still do not fully understand. Selection involves what I explained above, the differences in traits. Traits that do impact an organism.

Let's take the giraffe for example. Their ancestors presumably had much shorter necks. One of the most compelling facts that has lead to this assumption is the fact that they have just as many vertebrae in their neck as a human, which is seven. They may have migrated to a new area with higher trees or perhaps over time only the tallest plants survived. Now, by chance, one giraffe ancestor is born with a taller head than most but it can now reach the higher trees and be better off than the others. Most importantly, it has a better chance to spread this mutation when it reproduces.

So, with a combination of taller trees and various other conditions, the giraffes with shorter necks slowly fade away as the gene for a longer neck allows a giraffe to be more successful and even out compete giraffes with shorter necks.. That is why we say selection because in a way, nature "selects" that gene to carry on due to changing conditions.

I hope this helps.

I understand the real theory, I was just trying to explain to Magixal that cells can't make conscious decisions like that. That's all. Thanks

The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict evolution, but they do contradict the big bang.

I will eventually get to everyone above but I am currently reading about the above idea.

The majority of the scientific community, and that is by no means a super majority but well above , actually find that the laws of thermodynamics does not contradict the Big Bang. Again, I am not a physicist but here is the explanation from what I understand.

The Big Bang theory states that there was a sudden burst of energy and matter that began expanding since the dawn of time and is still expanding at an unknown rate. Therefore, even as the entropy increases, the size of the universe also increases to accommodate this, and many other, changes.

Think of it like a party in one room of the house (a house that could expand indefinitely I suppose). More and more people come, rearrange themselves in the room, and it becomes more and more disordered. However, this house is constantly Getty new editions and as the party goes on, people move into other rooms of the house and diffuse. The amount of entropy (people) can stay the same or increase but there will always be enough room to accommodate them in a house that is constantly expanding.

Here is a better explanation from Mano Singham:
"In more technical terms, if we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R. Thus even if the initial universe was at maximum entropy for its size, as the universe expands its entropy can increase while still being easily able to accommodate the increasing order we see. In fact, calculations done assuming that there exist ten planets per star, 100 billion stars for every galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (which are our best current estimates) show that the ordering of the planets produces changes in entropy of only one part in 1011 of the total current entropy."

With that explanation, yes, we are heading towards an increasing disorder and randomness but the universe is continuously expanding as well. Therefore, we can see an increase in order and entropy within the universe that can go on indefinitely unless the universe can only expand to a certain amount, at which point, the best guess is that the universe would simply collapse into another super dense particle. We obviously have not reached that point though.

Ok. First off, you only addressed one of the laws of thermodynamics. There are people much better qualified than me to argue the above point and if you want a good argument you should probably look elsewhere as(just assuming) while the people arguing here may be smart we are not scientists. But as i have already stated, while evolution may make a guess or even have a half-way decent explanation for the laws of thermodynamics, creationism and more specifically the bible would expect if not predict it.
Second off, no one has really addressed my points about geologic clocks. Almost all of them point to a time-period of about 6-10 thousand years, a timeframe that would suit creationism perfectly( side-note: while evolution needs long periods of time to really be even close to plausible, creationism can work with long periods and short periods of time. This means that even if you prove that the earth is old it does not prove creationism wrong). You may say that geologic clock really on all conditions to stay the same. Well really so does evolution. (Anyone heard the word uniformitarism(sp?)). Carbon dating(one of the few geologic clocks that agree with evolution) needs conditions to stay the same to be accurate. Even if carbon dating is accurate(which i have good reason to believe it is not) it does not agree with the geologic ages.

No matter how this debate turns out, i have respect for you Vrealen. You are one of the only ones of my opponents who really wants to know the truth and tries to keep name calling out of it. I hope you do come to see the truth. Lol.

I have respect for you as well and hopefully, one day, we may all know the complete truth. Unfortunately, that day is not today nor any day close to this moment. Lol

Is not a half way decent explanation the same if not better than a prediction?

I only addressed the second law of thermodynamics because that is where most, if not all, of the controversy exists. It is also what EdElric was specially leading towards.

As for geological clocks and carbon dating, well, Dersu already answered you and some others and it is pretty close to what I believe:
http://www.celtic-heroes.com/forum/view ... 72#p365472
http://www.celtic-heroes.com/forum/view ... 48#p365448

I understand the real theory, I was just trying to explain to Magixal that cells can't make conscious decisions like that. That's all. Thanks

But those questions... They seemed so serious... All that typing... For nothing...