100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does mathimatic's disprove evolution in origin's? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
lol,They are not based on mathimatical theory's but equations, l i didnt realise evolutionist's would be so militant in this forum, now I know many arnt open to discuss any challenge to evolution I'll try to hold my tongue:) Oh and please dont be mistaken, everything I have posted is intelligible and coherent, thanx:) "lol,They are not based on mathimatical theory's but equations," With all due respect, that statement is meaningless. You may be surprised at the level of math some of us work with every day. If you say "math", you need to show the math or at least point to the mathematician. Simply hearing of the topic as a rumor is not convincing in the least. The actual math probabilities of life on other worlds is being examined daily by NASA and others. There is a possibility that life evolved on Jupiter's Moons as well as Saturn's independently of Earth and possibly Mars. If space probes prove this to be true, the probabilities of life on faraway worlds on thousands of planets is virtually 100Z. http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Jupiter/JupiterOceans.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm completely confused by the idea that a certain number is too large to reach and therefore discredited for any purpose of evaluation. Pick a number. Any number. Add 1. Numbers are infinite. I had a similar thought while reading this. These are the lengths people will go to in order to justify their beliefs. Is this thread actually meant to be a question of science or is a question of religion/faith? Thats a good question. The laws of thermodynamics do not, in any way, "seem to disprove it". That reference is basic and does not even reference such disproof.
Quoted for truth. HeavenlyBoy, you've picked up on - and now tried to propagate - a completely false and (if examined closely) foolish idea. Its one of the most ridiculous anti-evolution arguments that exist. The laws are precise statements which actually play a role in motivating evolution, but nothing about the theory of evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. If you want to investigate this more thoroughly (and honestly), remember that proper application of the laws of thermodynamics requires paying careful attention to details. I didn't "propagate" anything. I don't have a bias either way on this issue, and just put forth an observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
skydancingA
on
Thu 02/18/10 09:22 AM
|
|
suerly if something has a probability, then its not impossible, just a varying degree of unlikely?? I agree. Mathematics don't lie. They lend you probability cause though. We are, because probability exists. Or. We are because math and physics exist to explain. They say that the laws of physics do not exist in black holes. My theory is...we have not found their properties yet. Maybe there is a whole new set of physics that explain black holes. Mathematically. To prove or give us probabilities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The law of thermo prove's as far as i know that the universe as we know it cannot be eternal ...which has nothing to do with whether evolution is compatible with the laws of thermodynamics. ...something could be mathimatically impossible, it is not that it is impossible, but it is so improbable...
Is that a retraction of your previous use of the word 'impossible' ? If so, you might be on your way to a sensible statement and/or question. --------------------- lonetar wrote: no one realy means to come across as disscredating your question,
Lonetar, if you think there is a legitimate question which has not been discredited, maybe you would like to help NoLonger by framing it or stating it in another way? I see many people trying to draw him out into something more tangible, but so far this conversation (as MetalWing accurately observed) is lacking in meaningful statements. --------------------- HeavenyBoy wrote: I didn't "propagate" anything. I don't have a bias either way on this issue, and just put forth an observation.
This is all I meant by the word - the 'observation' was presented as if the idea might have merit, and people reading this forum might think the idea had merit. This is what I call 'the propagation of ideas'. --------------------- NoLonger: i didnt realise evolutionist's would be so militant
The 'militant evolutionists' haven't even joined this thread yet. I'm guessing they've rolled their eyes and decided it wasn't worth commenting. Does it make you feel better to think that any disagreement is due to the close-mindedness of others? Surely, it couldn't be that what you have said so far is borderline nonsense? Or wrong? Or maybe this is just a deliberate rhetorical technique on your part? now I know many arnt open to discuss any challenge to evolution Is this how you demonstrate the care with which you reach conclusion based on abundant evidence? Oh and please dont be mistaken, everything I have posted is intelligible and coherent, thanx:)
Are you being ironic? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are not based on mathimatical theory's but equations, lol, i didnt realise evolutionist's would be so militant in this forum, now I know many arnt open to discuss any challenge to evolution I'll try to hold my tongue:) Oh and please dont be mistaken, everything I have posted is intelligible and coherent, thanx:) Evolution is commonly discussed at great length. Your math theories are another matter. If you don't know who generated the theory of which you speak, can you you just explain where you got this information? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeavenyBoy wrote: I didn't "propagate" anything. I don't have a bias either way on this issue, and just put forth an observation.
This is all I meant by the word - the 'observation' was presented as if the idea might have merit, and people reading this forum might think the idea had merit. This is what I call 'the propagation of ideas'. The idea does in fact have merit. According to the second law of thermodynamics, systems tend toward entropy, not complexity (as evolutionists would have you believe). I am not entirely against the idea of evolution-I am just not convinced of it yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeavenyBoy wrote: I didn't "propagate" anything. I don't have a bias either way on this issue, and just put forth an observation.
This is all I meant by the word - the 'observation' was presented as if the idea might have merit, and people reading this forum might think the idea had merit. This is what I call 'the propagation of ideas'. The idea does in fact have merit. According to the second law of thermodynamics, systems tend toward entropy, not complexity (as evolutionists would have you believe). I am not entirely against the idea of evolution-I am just not convinced of it yet. It would appear you do not understand anything about thermodynamics. Your "idea" does not have any merit, of any kind whatsoever. Life processes, of all kinds, are classic examples of how thermodynamics work ... in every way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HeavenlyBoy,
BTW, I do hope that you don't feel wrongly accused by my use of the word 'propagate'. I am not entirely against the idea of evolution-I am just not convinced of it yet. Depending on how one characterizes 'evolution', I have the same position. I think its important to evaluate claims individually, and the fact that the '2nd law of thermodynamics' argument is pure BS does not make evolution valid. According to the second law of thermodynamics, systems tend toward entropy, not complexity (as evolutionists would have you believe). This is a common mistake, and one that is often mistaken for a valid argument by Creationists. Long ago I read many dozens of books on Christian apologetics, and it becomes very obvious that the authors/editors of a particular book are either dishonest or ignorant of science when they make this claim as if it had merit. The more scientifically literate (and honest) Creationists will either not mention this idea, or mention it only to debunk it. According to the second law of thermodynamics, systems tend toward entropy,
This is actually wrong. The 2nd law only applies to CLOSED systems. This is not a technicality, its the whole point. You cannot sustain life indefinitely in a system that is 'closed' in the sense which the 2nd law uses the word. We sustain our complexity by eating food - the total entropy of 'us' + 'our food' does increase. (Which is NOT to say that we form a closed system with our food, its just an observation to help understand how we can sustain our complexity without violating the laws.) Where did our food get its energy and complexity? With varying degrees of directness, from the sun - which is also 'winding down'. The total entropy of 'our food' + 'the sun' is increasing even as our food uses the sun to create its own complexity/energy storage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even these guys require an input of energy from outside their little 'ecosphere' to keep going:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
redonkulous
on
Sat 02/20/10 08:12 AM
|
|
They are not based on mathimatical theory's but equations, lol, i didnt realise evolutionist's would be so militant in this forum, now I know many arnt open to discuss any challenge to evolution I'll try to hold my tongue:) Oh and please dont be mistaken, everything I have posted is intelligible and coherent, thanx:) Your own lack of comprehension preempts any possibility in this regard. I advise you read these books until comprehension follows then you can reengage in this discussion with the proper tools at hand. The Age of the Earth http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804723311/thetalkorigin-20/ Evolutionary Biology http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0878931899/thetalkorigin-20/ Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671459392/thetalkorigin-20/ Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story (Canto) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521398282/thetalkorigin-20/ Energy and the Evolution of Life http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716718499/thetalkorigin-20/ The last one deals with the energy question handily. |
|
|
|
|
