Enoch2021 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 ========================================================================= Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law. If it did, we would not have stars or planets. This is circular logic Jerry and I think a convoluted version of Denying the Antecedent. It does violate 2LOT: “The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.” [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.] From a Gas to a Solid....in our example of the Sun....is a Case of Decreasing Entropy. See above for a compare and contrast You can explain to us how if violates Bolye and Jeans. Jerry.....I don't have the time and this is real easy to look up. Just type in Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass into Wiki....it'll take you less than 5 minutes to get it. Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites. Are you saying that these are Creationist Sources : Sun And Stars, p.111 Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998 ????? And it sounds like an Ad Hominem also. almost all of the hits were from creationist sites. That screams of quote-mining.That screams of quote-mining. Jerry I don't think you understand what "Quote Mining" is: "Quote Mining"- The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quote%20mining Just because there are "Quotes" in replies or papers that come from a single source or a number of sources for that matter doesn't mean they're "Quote Mined". This "Quote Mining" issue is actually quite humorous. Were you ever assigned a Research Paper? Are you familiar with the concept of CITING REFERENCES in SUPPORT of your postulates or ideas? Have you heard of Parenthetical Citations and either a "bibliography" or "references" or "works cited" page @ the end of the document? These are used to SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS, protect against plagiarism, and offer Integrity to the work in an attempt to systematically establish TRUTH. It also allows the reader to confirm these ideas and postulates by looking up the DOCUMENTED SOURCES independently to confirm the: credibility, validity, and veracity of the sources and material. To be concise and for brevity on this medium, I post Excerpts or Quotes to directly support or refute claims providing the (Author, Book or Periodical, and Page Number). So before you see quotes and then give a Baseless "Conditioned Response" of "Quote Mining", please check the reference to confirm: credibility, validity, and veracity. Then to support your Baseless Claim "quote mining", please provide the "CONTEXT" of the cited work in question with the SPECIFIC TEXT that PROVES how it directly contradicts what the "quote" in contention PLAINLY SAYS. Anything less is a Baseless Generalized Unsupported Assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 10, 2014 ========================================================================= Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law. If it did, we would not have stars or planets. This is circular logic Jerry and I think a convoluted version of Denying the Antecedent. It does violate 2LOT: “The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way.” [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.] From a Gas to a Solid....in our example of the Sun....is a Case of Decreasing Entropy. See above for a compare and contrast So, you are saying that it is impossible for space dust to coalesce into stars and planets because of 2LOT? Even though we are seeing it happen? Jerry.....I don't have the time and this is real easy to look up. Just type in Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass into Wiki....it'll take you less than 5 minutes to get it. Ok, I'll look it up, just thought since you bring them up often you would have something readily available. Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites. Are you saying that these are Creationist Sources : Sun And Stars, p.111 Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998 ????? And it sounds like an Ad Hominem also. No Ad Hom intended. I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science. Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition. So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method. I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 10, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 No Ad Hom intended. I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science. Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition. So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method. I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not. ======================================================================================= I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science. We all have Presuppositions Sir. The Key is to recognize them and evaluate each for efficacy and merit. Also..... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition. "TREE" = "LIFE"..........= "Specific Complexity". ALL Praise to the ALMIGHTY GOD!!!! If you're unfortunate enough to never here THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.......GOD HAS A CATCH ALL: (Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" So, Creationist websites will not help your argument This is an Ad Hominem and I can Assure you that "New Scientist" and "Science" are not Creationist Websites. I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not. I have personally reviewed every Single Quote and Source I use....You won't find one I can assure you. But you may check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted March 11, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Interesting discussion. I've always wondered, if our sun is moving across space amongst a spiraling arm of the Milky Way galaxy, how is it that we still get meteor showers 2-3 times a year? Does the sun drag everything with it in perfect order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755.... ? So Beloved, You Are Contending That Science Is Not Really Knowledge For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6 But Just Some Date Stamped Thoughts Left To Expire In Due Time? But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 So, Who Will You Turn To For Knowledge Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever: Psalms 146:5-6 That Will Not The LORD shall reign for ever and ever. Exodus 15:18 Rot Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Luke 21:33 You Think? Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 No Ad Hom intended. I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science. Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition. So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method. I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not. ~ Quote Mining Isn't All In Vane Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; Isaiah 44:24-25 As To Rocks And Stuff For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20 You See? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:61-63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts