|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.
Please fall back and regroup.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.
Please fall back and regroup. Hey its all hat and no cattle good too see your still using Deep Heet on your Hemorrhoids
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.
Please fall back and regroup. Hey its all hat and no cattle good too see your still using Deep Heet on your Hemorrhoids In other words, you are talking out your ass and don't have a clue. Par for the course here.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
entropy can also occur in open systems.
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.
Please fall back and regroup. Hey its all hat and no cattle good too see your still using Deep Heet on your Hemorrhoids In other words, you are talking out your ass and don't have a clue. Par for the course here. well belly up to the bar cowboy, or tee off or something
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
entropy can also occur in open systems. Nobody suggested otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.
Please fall back and regroup. Leroy, Perhaps you could help me here. At first glance, one of their articles includes a myriad of esoteric external references..... many of which are based in theory..... repeat.... theory....and then along the way, another conglomeration of mathematical formulas are introduced. I could not follow it nor comprehend it..... apparently you can. So, can you shed some light on this? Here is my take on it, but I would like to hear yours... From what I have read about this, it can be summarized as mathematical and theoretical demonstration that lower order systems can result in higher order systems. Ok, that is easy to understand. Then, finally, one article gave an example....sperm to egg to embryo..... Wow!
Last edited by TF49; 08/17/19. Reason: Punc/address
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
shouldn't let this die, it was almost to combining thermo, quantum mechanics, and information theory
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,202 Likes: 18
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 45,202 Likes: 18 |
I believe this is attributed to Duane BigEagle:
My Grandfather Was a Quantum Physicist
I can see him now smiling in full dance costume in front of the roundhouse on a sunny afternoon.
Scientists have finally discovered that the intimate details of our lives are influenced by things beyond the stars and beyond time.
My grandfather knew this
Duane BigEagle’s grandfather was really smart
November 26, 2002 By Chris Corrigan Uncategorized One Comment
Issues in American Indian Research
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865 |
There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later. Your evidence for this.....being? I did a time line in the Bible. The flood happened 1, 656 years after creation. This addresses both. From your posts I know you are not serious. But if you ever got serious you could read about genetic load and how fast mutations accumulate. Way too fast for a beneficial mutation to be established in a population. I learned this from a guy who has real scientific credentials: Dr. John Sanford. "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" Me personally, what I happen to be reading or have read is not the issue. The issue is the absurdity of the claim of special creation and Noahic flood in the face of abundent evidence for natural evolution and over 4 billion years of geological history... Only from scientists who willfully reject the truth of radiometric dating.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865 |
Entropy is an issue within a closed system. Complex chemistry on Earth is being powered by the Sun. Entropy was discovered in an open system. In case you didn't know it the sun is running down also. That's because the entire universe is running down. The Bible mentioned that thousands of years ago.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[quote=Ringman][quote=DBT]There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later. Your evidence for this.....being? I Only from scientists who willfully reject the truth of radiometric dating. Really? Like practically all the physicists on the planet? Only Creationists having the answers?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865 |
[quote=Ringman][quote=DBT]There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later. Your evidence for this.....being? I Only from scientists who willfully reject the truth of radiometric dating. Really? Like practically all the physicists on the planet? Only Creationists having the answers? You don't seem to understand. Most creationists believe in The Creator and are convinced they will stand before Him in judgement. Therefore they tend to be a lot more careful in their bold proclamations. They have facts to back their claim whether the evolutionists accept them or not. Like I asked in the past. Can you come up with any Ph.D creationists who became evolutionists after they earned their degree. I can come up with Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they earned their degree and started lab and or field research.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[quote=DBT][quote=Ringman][quote=DBT]There was a genetic bottleneck, possibly two, during the last ice age where we as a species nearly went extinct.
Let me help you out here. The first "bottleneck" happened at creation. The second "bottleneck" happened about 1,656 years later. Your evidence for this.....being? Really? Like practically all the physicists on the planet? Only Creationists having the answers? You don't seem to understand. Most creationists believe in The Creator and are convinced they will stand before Him in judgement. Therefore they tend to be a lot more careful in their bold proclamations. They have facts to back their claim whether the evolutionists accept them or not. Like I asked in the past. Can you come up with any Ph.D creationists who became evolutionists after they earned their degree. I can come up with Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they earned their degree and started lab and or field research. Your question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865 |
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption. Your lack of concern for the truth is what is silly. The reason they switched is the overwhelming facts could no longer be ignored. Occasionally they get ridiculed by their former colleagues. Some times they loose their jobs. how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption. Your lack of concern for the truth is what is silly. The reason they switched is the overwhelming facts could no longer be ignored. Occasionally they get ridiculed by their former colleagues. Some times they loose their jobs. how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results. Truth? Who switched? What percentage? Can you give an actual list and percentage of scientists who have rejected evolution in favour of creationism?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Ringman,
Some comments....some opinions....
From an article read quite some time ago, quoted as best I can remember:
“The science is what the science is; dependent upon the data and the interpretation of the data. When the data changes and when interpretative techniques change, the “science” will change.”
Makes sense.... at one time the best scientific minds of the day concluded the earth was 40,000,000 years old. Today, it is generally accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earth did not change, the data and interpretive techniques changed. One would assume that 100 years from now, many ideas that are today held to be incontrovertible will be long since discarded.
Having said that, you are entirely correct to be suspicious of radiometric dating. But, the science is what it is and that is what is generally accepted.
But, there are many spectacularly wrong dates provided by both the data and data interpretation techniques in today’s world.
I once took a course in geophysics. Professor was very highly regarded. I was green as grass and completely enamored about the many new dating techniques he was talking about. Then one day he brought a rock into the class and asked us what we thought it was and how we would go about establishing a date of formation for rock. Great fun and the class was fully engaged in the discussion. As the discussion was winding down, he started to point out all the complexities involved in radiometric dating. He told us that it is virtually impossible to accurately date an individual rock like he had on his desk. He said that we surely could subject the rock to all kinds of dating techniques but all we would really have was “data points.” He said one must know where the rock came from, the related rock formations and then pick the best technique based on the rock chemistry....so on and so forth. His point was that you can’t subject the rock to a simple test and expect an accurate answer.
The problem, as he explained it, is that radiometric dating was as much an interpretive art as it was science. He noted the dates provided might vary immensely based on the input assumptions about rock chemistry. A good example are many of the volcanic flows coming out in the Hawaiian volcanoes. We have flows that we know are less than 200 years old but have been age dated as 200 million years. Same goes for assumptions in the potassium-argon method. One has to make an assumption of how much K-Ar deterioration happened .... before..... the rock solidified ... or whether or not it had gone through numerous cycles of partial melting. It seems often, simplifying assumptions are made..... maybe to obtain repeatable data results. Change the assumptions and you will “change the date.”.....perhaps significantly.
Long winded, but the science is what it is and it is a mistake to assume that radiometric dates are as accurate as the arithmetic associated with the dating technique indicates.
I think radiometric dating techniques have a long way to go. Same with the Big Bang theory. Wouldn’t surprise me if some new theory supplants it.
Science is what it is, but certainly has limitations and certainly does not provide all the answers.
Last edited by TF49; 08/17/19. Reason: Left out a word
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption. I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results. I'm saying that complex systems can and do form on the basis of physics, chemistry, energy input, etc, how these systems form being determined by composition and the prevailing states and conditions, be it stars, galaxies , planets, moons, comets, organic chemistry, weather patterns...google for examples if you are not sure.
Last edited by DBT; 08/17/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,865 |
lYour question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption. I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results. I'm saying that complex systems can and do form on the basis of physics, chemistry, energy input, etc, how these systems form being determined by composition and the prevailing states and conditions, be it stars, galaxies , planets, moons, comets, organic chemistry, weather patterns...google for examples if you are not sure. From this are you expecting me to believe a result can be greater than its cause?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,487 |
what seems complex on one scale is not on another. similarities of scale in non-linear dynamics are good examples, Mandelbrot and Julia sets. complexity on the planet is small compared to the universe.
Entropy has properties, information which is one of the them is a property of the observer, not the system.
numbers not being what you would expect, gets into the 4th, 5th law of thermo, but has come along ways (as mentioned above on advancement of scientific method).
as quantum physics gains more insight expect, expect changes in the outlook of absolute zero, especially from the entropy of information
yes the result can certainly be greater the parts
a good book in this area if interested is Information and Self- Organization by H. Haken an early laser physicist. and Coding and InformationTheory from Springers Grad. text in Math.
Most people don't have what it takes to get old
|
|
|
|
557 members (007FJ, 06hunter59, 10Glocks, 1234, 01Foreman400, 10gaugemag, 62 invisible),
2,481
guests, and
1,201
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,406
Posts18,488,965
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|