"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead one

legspin wrote: »

You certainly haven't managed to keep it a secret.

why you are exposing it;)

legspin

dead one wrote: »

why you are exposing it;)

I don't have to.
Your espousal of the line that the 2nd law of the thermodynamics disproves Evolution is evidence enough for that.

Zillah

legspin wrote: »

I don't have to.
Your espousal of the line that the 2nd law of the thermodynamics disproves Evolution is evidence enough for that.

Of course evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! Why, for evolution to make any sense there would have to be some external energy source constantly pouring energy into Earth's ecosystem!

Genghiz Cohen

Zillah wrote: »

Of course evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! Why, for evolution to make any sense there would have to be some external energy source constantly pouring energy into Earth's ecosystem!

Let my put on some sunglasses and have a look outside for one...
...
.
..
..
..
... Nope!
But it is warm out..

POINTBREAK

Zillah wrote: »

Of course evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! Why, for evolution to make any sense there would have to be some external energy source constantly pouring energy into Earth's ecosystem!

-
Yeah like some crazy big yellow ball in the sky.
Good one.

dead one

legspin wrote: »

I don't have to.
Your espousal of the line that the 2nd law of the thermodynamics disproves Evolution is evidence enough for that.

ignorance isn't crime....
Yes, You have to.... The complete universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system..... So the second law states that in the universe, entropy is increasing as a whole...... It means, things are tending to breaking down.....becoming less complex..... This is observed phenomena......fact, not a theory..... So why you don't explain it.... In what science or physics, do you believe......

Do you prefer that science which matches with your faith

Zillah wrote: »

Of course evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! Why, for evolution to make any sense there would have to be some external energy source constantly pouring energy into Earth's ecosystem!

Still sitting on earth... why are you ignoring universe.....
Now see your own statement...

Why, for evolution to make any sense there would have to be some external energy source constantly pouring energy into Universe's system!

and that external source for universe is God.........
Oh guys!!!! evolution is proving existence of God

Zillah

dead one wrote: »

Why, for evolution to make any sense there would have to be some external energy source constantly pouring energy into Universe's system!

Only if the universe wasn't going to be reduced to nothing more than scattered forzen remnants, which it will be.

dead one

Zillah wrote: »

Only if the universe wasn't going to be reduced to nothing more than scattered forzen remnants, which it will be.

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billionyears old.... who is pouring energy into Universe's system for last 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years....

MrPudding

dead one wrote: »

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billionyears old.... who is pouring energy into Universe's system for last 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years....

But you don't believe it is that old, do you?

MrP

POINTBREAK

dead one wrote: »

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billionyears old.... who is pouring energy into Universe's system for last 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years....

-
Chief Wigham?

dead one

MrPudding wrote: »

But you don't believe it is that old, do you?
MrP

don't assume me Christian?....... Don't you know, it doesn't contradict Islam....

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
Chief Wigham?

Zillah

dead one wrote: »

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billionyears old.... who is pouring energy into Universe's system for last 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years....

No one. The universe has a finite energy value, all of which came into existence at the instant of The Big Bang.

dead one

Zillah
Now your myth is going to bust again.... Are not you contradicting physics here....

The law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed than where this energy came from....

Zillah wrote: »

No one. The universe has a finite energy value, all of which came into existence at the instant of The Big Bang.

pH

dead one wrote: »

Zillah
Now your myth is going to bust again.... Are not you contradicting physics here....


If energy can neither be created nor destroyed than where this energy came from....

Quite possibly the amount of energy in the universe is zero - therefore nothing needs to have been created nor destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

dead one

dead one wrote: »

ignorance isn't crime....
Yes, You have to.... The complete universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system..... So the second law states that in the universe, entropy is increasing as a whole...... It means, things are tending to breaking down.....becoming less complex..... This is observed phenomena......fact, not a theory..... So why you don't explain it.... In what science or physics, do you believe......

It should be impossible for you to place water in your freezer and get ice then, no?

You should try and understand that entropy is increasing on average. Complexity can increase in localised systems, such as on Earth, or in your blocks of ice when you freeze them.

If you stick with the above argument then you should at least admit that a freezer producing ice from water is impossible.

housetypeb

dead one wrote: »

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billionyears old.... who is pouring energy into Universe's system for last 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years....

Since the big bang-which the angels still talk about with hushed voices-god has been coming hard for the last 14 billion years,pumping his eternal seed into the universe,soon he's going to take a nap.

J C

pH wrote: »

Quite possibly the amount of energy in the universe is zero - therefore nothing needs to have been created nor destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

More stuff from the Evolutionist 'Stable' !!!:eek:

Firstly, ye say there was nothing ... and then it blew up in a great big bang to produce all of the matter and space in the Universe!!!
Secondly ye say that puddles of muck ... with an odd blast of lightning thrown in every now and then ... spontaneously generated life!!
Thirdly ye claim that cells spontaneously organised themselves via billions of 'happy' mistakes to produce Man!!!!
.. and now ye are claiming that there is no energy in the Universe ... in a desperate attempt to bolster your Materialism ... God help ye!!!

... and ye have the audacity to want to sack any scientist who doesn't leave his/her brain at the doors of your establishments ... so that they can 'parrot' the latest unfounded stories of Evolutionism!!!!:eek::pac:

... do you guys ever get even a little embarrassed at the increasingly 'whacky' ideas that ye have to come up with ... in order to continue to deny God's obvious existence???:pac:

Turtwig

The big bang wasn't an explosion and yes the net energy of this universe is most probably one little fluctuation away from zero.

J C

J C wrote: »

do you guys ever get even a little embarrassed at the increasingly 'whacky' ideas that ye have to come up with ... in order to continue to deny God's obvious existence???:pac:

It doesn't matter how whacky or crazy scientific ideas become, J C, because the ideas themselves will never, ever be as whacky or crazy as supposing that a god created everything.

POINTBREAK

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It doesn't matter how whacky or crazy scientific ideas become, J C, because the ideas themselves will never, ever be as whacky or crazy as supposing that a god created everything.

-
An Invisible Magic Man in the Sky made it all on his week off. That's not wacky at all now, is it?

POINTBREAK

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
If the Universe is less than 10,000 years old how come the Supernova SN1987A
was measured as approx 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) using Trigonometry.
Was Trigonometry "different at the time the Universe was created as well?

BUMP......in case you missed it JC.

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

If the Universe is less than 10,000 years old how come the Supernova SN1987A
was measured as approx 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) using Trigonometry.
Was Trigonometry "different at the time the Universe was created as well?

BUMP......in case you missed it JC.

When/how was this particular feat of trig achieved ?

Reference please?

BUMP ... over to you!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

The big bang wasn't an explosion and yes the net energy of this universe is most probably one little fluctuation away from zero.

... Whaaakey !!!:D

... so the big bang was just in some Evolutionists head ... and the Sun's energy output is 'running on empty'!!!

... like I have said ... don't you ever feel even a teeny weeney bit embarrassed ... when you regurgitate this stuff... in a desperate attempt to get people to believe the unbelievable??:eek:

J C

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It doesn't matter how whacky or crazy scientific ideas become, J C, because the ideas themselves will never, ever be as whacky or crazy as supposing that a god created everything.

Only a transcendent entity of effectively infinite omnipotence and omnipotence could theoretically or practically create the Universe and all life as we observe it in all its magnificence and specified complexity ... whether you believe this entitiy to be the God of the Bible is up to you ... but alternative 'logical contradictions' like a zero energy Universes ... or a big bang that wasn't an explosion is something I wouldn't be shouting about ... if I wanted to deny God ... and retain some credibility!!!:)

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

When/how was this particular feat achieved ?

Reference please?

-
When? That's an easy one. 1987.

-
How? One can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.


http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~courteau/Phys216/eds.html#trig
-
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
When? That's an easy one. 1987.

-
How? One can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.


http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~courteau/Phys216/eds.html#trig
-
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

The maximum distance that can be measured by direct trigonometry is only about 1,600 light years (using the Hipparcos satellite to measure the parallax angles).
The original trig in the case of SN1987A was based on the measurement of a gas ring surrounding the Supernova supposely being 'turned on' by light from the original explosion ... when it seems that the ring was actually created by the supernova ... and thus the diameter of the ring is only a tiny fraction of the assumed diameter (which is based on the speed of light ... rather than the speed of dispersing dust) ... and thus the distance is only a tiny fraction of 168,000 light years.

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

The maximum distance that can be measured by direct trigonometry is only about 1,600 light years (using the Hipparcos satellite to measure the parallax angles).
The original trig in the case of SN1987A was based on the measurement of a gas ring surrounding the Supernova supposely being 'turned on' by light from the original explosion ... when it seems that the ring was actually created by the supernova ... and thus the diameter of the ring is only a tiny fraction of the assumed diameter (which is based on the speed of light ... rather than the speed of dispersing dust) ... and thus the distance is only a tiny fraction of 168,000 light years.

-
- REFERENCE PLEASE

pH

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
When? That's an easy one. 1987.

-
How? One can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.


http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~courteau/Phys216/eds.html#trig
-
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm

I'm afraid J C has already stated that the furthest object that can be measured using trigonometry is a mere 200 light years (well within his 10,000 year old universe's light cone), therefore the above must be wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51888782&postcount=2865
:rolleyes:

Oh and J C, seeing as you're so sure the energy content of the universe is not zero, perhaps you'd hazard a guess as to what the energy content of the universe actually is?

POINTBREAK

pH wrote: »

I'm afraid J C has already stated that the furthest object that can be measured using trigonometry is a mere 200 light years (well within his 10,000 year old universe's light cone), therefore the above must be wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51888782&postcount=2865
:rolleyes:

Oh and J C, seeing as you're so sure the energy content of the universe is not zero, perhaps you'd hazard a guess as to what the energy content of the universe actually is?

-
How does he feel about E=mc2? It becomes a very interesting equation if "c" keeps changing.

J C

pH wrote: »

I'm afraid J C has already stated that the furthest object that can be measured using trigonometry is a mere 200 light years (well within his 10,000 year old universe's light cone), therefore the above must be wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51888782&postcount=2865
:rolleyes:

... we live and learn!!!

pH wrote: »

Oh and J C, seeing as you're so sure the energy content of the universe is not zero, perhaps you'd hazard a guess as to what the energy content of the universe actually is?

... nobody knows the exact figure ... but it's astonomical!!!!
... and it's certainly not zero!!:)