Dinosaurs

[redeemed098]

here are two sites for research, if you are interested:

http://drdino.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

At the Answers in Genesis site, click on Media, then videos on demand.

God Bless

This article is enough to condemn Hovind as the ultimate idiot.

And your comment proves that ultimately, you're really quite rude.

How could someone claim that evolution says we're gaining chromosomes? That's so absurd it isn't even funny. He invents nonsensical little stories and uses them against evolution. You may call me rude but the truth is that he is dishonest, probably uneducated and a trickster who fools you into giving him money.

Heres an idea Lepaca..Mind your own business...

What business is it of yours what ANYONE does with their money....?

Is anyone telling YOU what to do with YOURS...?

Get off your soap box of intellect and go and get saved.

Regards,

Ben.

[Bread_of_Life]

I studied it at school, like everyone else. There is no way he can show evolution violates that law and you know it if you're as well versed in science as you seem from the other posts. So I don't understand the reason of this mockery of yours.

No mockery, I'm a physicist. I was just hoping there was another one on the boards.

Unusual to study the second law of thermodynamics at school. The furthest we went at high school was the first law, and we tend to go further than the US at high school.

I'm slightly suspicious, would you like to state the second law in its differential form, and explain the terms therein?

[Anne]

here are two sites for research, if you are interested:

http://drdino.com/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

At the Answers in Genesis site, click on Media, then videos on demand.

God Bless

This article is enough to condemn Hovind as the ultimate idiot.

And your comment proves that ultimately, you're really quite rude.

How could someone claim that evolution says we're gaining chromosomes? That's so absurd it isn't even funny. He invents nonsensical little stories and uses them against evolution. You may call me rude but the truth is that he is dishonest, probably uneducated and a trickster who fools you into giving him money.

From one article you have deduced that Mr Hovind is:

(a) dishonest.

(b) uneducated (probably), does that mean you didn't bother to find out)?

© a trickster.

I love the way you researched the sites thoroughly before posting your educated and honest response!

Bread of Life, this thread is all yours.

[redeemed098]

I studied it at school, like everyone else. There is no way he can show evolution violates that law and you know it if you're as well versed in science as you seem from the other posts. So I don't understand the reason of this mockery of yours.

No mockery, I'm a physicist. I was just hoping there was another one on the boards.

Unusual to study the second law of thermodynamics at school. The furthest we went at high school was the first law, and we tend to go further than the US at high school.

I'm slightly suspicious, would you like to state the second law in its differential form, and explain the terms therein?

Sorry, I completely misunderstood. I did study phisics at high school here in Italy (liceo scientifico) and I dread the day I'll have to give the phisics exam here at the university, which now approaches as I get near to the end. Don't expect anything "interesting" coming from me; first of all I'm a computer science student and mostly don't care to go into much detail, favoring the understanding of the processes and how they impact on life, second consider that I know Italian technical terms but I have to manage with informal English. and pedestrian Italian -> English translation.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by differential. There is more than one way to express the second law of thermodinamics. One says that heat cannot flow naturally from a cold body to a hot one. Another says that there's no way a device that works cyclically can get heat and turn it into work without wasting some energy. Another - the one that is probably relevant here in this thread - says that in a closed system the sum total of all the entropy variations must be higher than zero (now that I think about it, this sounds like it could be the differential one). A closed system is one that cannot receive nor give up any kind of energy or matter to its surroundings; an open one can and does.

Now about entropy (I don't think you would be satisfied without me saying what it is). It'll take a while. It is a property of a thermodynamic system that reflects how much usable energy there is. It is not a measure of such energy but I remember it directly determines it. It's measured as the difference of heat divided by the temperature of the system. I'll have to make some kind of example, the easiest I remember is ice melting. A room and a glass with ice and water inside make a closed system; the open system ice+water gets heat from the rest of the room, the air, the glass etc, also an open system. As the ice melts and then the water warms up, the entropy of the water+ice open system increases. We can see that because the difference in heat is positive. However, the rest of the room is giving up heat so its entropy is decreasing. Now, if we actually measure things we can see that the sum of those two entropy variations is positive and entropy has increased overall. This is strongly tied to something we can notice at a more intuitive level: after the water and the glass and the rest of the room all have the same temperature, no heat flux happens. Everything stands perfectly "still". If I wanted anything else to happen inside it, I would need an external source of energy because nothing inside can be used to do anything. When no transformations are possible anymore, the entropy has reached a maximum value. And there's no way to decrease it: the water won't freeze by making heat flow from itself to the room. The room won't make itself colder passing heat to the glass of water, making it boil (no spaghetti. damn). So I have to take energy from somewhere else and break the system's equilibrium (like it was broken in the beginning due to the difference of heat between ice+water and the room) to set something in motion again. I plug some device to the electricity line and boil or freeze water; however, since I'm taking energy from the outside, the room isn't a closed system anymore. To decrease the room's entropy I have to use elcricity produced, say, by burning oil (that's a common way to produce electricity in this blasted country). However oil, once burned, can't be "unburned". That kind of reminds me of when I couldn't freeze water again once it had melted. And, lo and behold, if I write down the numbers on a piece of paper and divide and sum, I can see that including everything relevant into my new room+electric line+power plant+oil closed system, entropy has gone up overall although it's gone down in the original room system, which is now open.

I hope this is enough to show I know what I'm talking about. Notice that I avoided talking about how one calculates the entropy of a system in a given state because I can't recall anything specific - I would normally search on Google but that's beside the point. So this is all I know about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

Doesn't your brain hurt Lepaca...?? Those text books sure sound convincing dont they??? That doesnt in the slightest demonstrate that you know what youre talking about Lepaca. It simply demonstrates how much knowledge you can remember from the texts youve read. Youre full of knowledge Lepaca, that is all.

Youre full of information that sounds impressive. Pity that ultimately thats all it will ever amount to Lepaca. Wasted space on your already used up Hard disk.

Time to reformat, Zero the disk and Install the RIGHT operating system. Get saved and stop trying to impress everyone with useless knowledge that only serves to puff up ones ego... Enough already...

Regards,

Ben.

[Floatingaxe]

Sure do love you, Ben!

[Floatingaxe]

What about the "gap" theory? this is the great period of time between Genesis 1:1... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." and verse 2: "The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface."

It is entirely possible that God did create the heavens and the earth, and then after some stretch of time, we see it suddenly without form and void! Void? What was on it before that needed to be voided? Hmmm! Interesting?

I have been open to the "gap" theory since childhood, and have not heard or read anything to dispute it yet.

Blessings!

How about the fact that light, the sun, moon and stars were not created until several verses after the supposed gap?

Dinosaurs must have lived in total darkness then....

At the giving of the Ten Commandments God restated it once and for all, in six days he created the heaven and the earth and the sea and ALL that is in them. The Gap theory cannot be correct, because it asserts that some part of creation happened "before" those six days, in essence calling God a liar.

The issue of dinosaurs "eating" humans is also not really an issue. Thej Bible says God gave man dominion over the earth, and the creatures in it. We see that Adam didn't have to go chase down animals to name them. They came to him. Noah didn't have to go round up animals to put on the Ark. They came to him.

It was not until after the flood that animals became wild(Genesis 9).

Dinosaurs are clearly depicted as alive at the time of the book of Job, which was possibly a few years before Moses' exile from Egypt, since many scholars believe Moses helped write the book down with Job's help.

Very good! Thought-provoking! Thanks!

[Guest Bipedalcow]

Dinosaurs did exist, as did microscopic creatures that dinosaurs evolved from over the course of MILLIONS of years. Of course the Earth is older that 6,000 years. It's over 2 billion!

[Floatingaxe]

[artsylady]

Anthropology is a field of science, but when it comes to dinosaurs and humans coexisting, the evidence is tossed aside. There are many cave drawings of dinosaurs. As well, there certainly are many legends of thunderbirds, dragons, sea monsters etc. Scribes have been writing about these creatures for a long time, not just in the Bible, but since it doesn't fit with 'evolution' these creatures are all tossed out.

And yes, ancient man did 'make up' fictitious creatures as well, like the spyhnx, but the creatures that were made up, were combinations of creatures already known, like a lion and a human.

[artsylady]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon

http://www.biopark.org/dragonhistory.html