"we think" in science means "this is what we propose and here is the evidence we have that supports our view - you are welcome to show how we are wrong"
given enough time , water over a large heat source will boil. < thats science
if any teacher actually says that the parents should sue.
please to quote the entire passage, quotemining is evil and breaks Gods commandment.
why is your full quote different from your phrase. "It must have formed" =/= "It must have evolved in the absence .."
Just look at the dog for exsample. All dogs breeds came from the same animal, the wolf. Over time we picked what abilitys we wanted on the new wolf puppys by mating the two wolfs with the abilitys we wanted the most.
Some wanted the wolf for hunting, some for looking after their animals, some wanted it for protection and they also wanted it to look a sertent way.
You can use DNA to see the changes from eatch breed and the original wolf.
@Garachiyas That would be 'micro-evolution', or 'variation within a species'. The question is, can micro-evolution ever work to change one species to another, ie, express a new and viable genetic trait onto offspring that was not already in the species genepool? Dogs (like most speciation), are merely expressing traits already possible. Even fruit flies, through hundreds of generations, fail to create anything but fruit flies but rather diverge along their genetic code.
@Garachiyas this is natural selection. not evolution. each variation in species has resulted in a loss of information compared to the parent breed. evolution requires that information be gained in order for new species to evolve.
The following is copy-pasted from their very own Statement of Faith, right on their Website (§4 [General], Item 6 [last item — scroll to bottom]):
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.…”
Translation: It doesn’t matter even if you SEE something with your OWN EYEBALLS — if it contradicts the Bible, it CAN’T be real!
This is a joke right? If a textbook says "Given enough time it will happen". That is a perfectly logical and scientific statement in many situations that simply dont happen instantly but over time. You guys are really reaching here lol. Example: given time, a glass of water in the freezer will freeze!!!!! Did i just blow the roof off that stupid statement in the film or what?
@er876897 We never say "we dont how it happened, but given enough time it will happen". Thats an outright bold faced lie, a pathetic slander attempt by creationists to undermine the scientific community. What we actually say is "We understand quite well how it happens, but it is an event that takes a lot of time to occur." There is NOTHING unscientific about stating an event takes time to occur. That is quote mining at its best.
1. Any science dealing with the past, including all geography, archeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, uses these words because all science is maleable. It is important to point out that you make fun of both "Must have" AND "Might have". Would you have biologists say it with certainty, or without certainty? Which one is best?
2. I've studied physics in college. I have a textbook on it with me here. The 2nd law clearly does not apply to open systems. It says so... in the law itself.
My point was that when the speaker says that the second law is NOT limited to closed systems, he is wrong, and misrepresenting that law.
As for the Universe being a closed system, you are completely right that it is. Thus, the total entropy will go down. Heck, the entropy in the Sun-Earth system will go down. This is accomplished by the wild increase of entropy in the sun required to produce the light. Thus, regardless of the order found on earth, the combined entropic change is positive.
The speaker is right, but you are misrepresenting him.
He is NOT saying that it is impossible for entropy to decrease in a open system. He is simply saying it is possible for entropy to increase in both open and closed systems.
This is a true statement, there is nothing fallacious about this. I consider you read my comment over and let it sink in :)
I think it's very clear that he's trying to show evolution to be impossible, by saying that the second law applies to open systems.
But if he were only saying that entropy CAN increase... then why on earth should that be evidence against evolution?
Of course entropy can increase, in any system. Entropy can also decrease in an open system. Now... since entropy can decrease, what exactly is the argument against evolution?
The fact that he says entropy can increase in any type of system shows disorder increases... in any type of system.
Simply said in any system, the order of complexity may not increase, but rather many times decrease. And such is an argument against many ramifications of atheism.
Aside from this, I hope you would check out this site and be helped by it.
So that's his argument? That since it is possible for disorder to increase, this is somehow evidence against evolution? Or, on a different note, atheism?
How so? It doesn't hurt evolution at all for disorder to be able to increase. Heck, let it increase wherever it wants, just as long as it's still possible for life itself to gain in complexity. The rest of the planet can do what it likes.
Similarly with atheism. It is possible for things to become disordered, and therefore... God?
If disorder and entropy increases possibly in all types of systems, then there is no reason that our arriving at where we are is based on the increasing of complexity.
A more logical explanation is demanded and the argument pursuing this line can be further built.
You must keep in mind the term evolution used in debate encompasses a wide field and you should study the context in which it is used.
After all... if it is entirely possible for order to increase by natural means in an open system, then why could not the order of life come about in this way?
What you said doesn't really follow what you said before:
"That since it is possible for disorder to increase, this is somehow evidence against evolution?"
That is evidence against a non-theistic view, what you just said has nothing to do with the above.
Second, it is possible for order to arise for writers to bash on their keyboard, but that is a proposterous explanation to explain why books, or essays exist.
Very well then... how is the fact that it is possible for disorder to increase evidence against a non-theistic view?
As for your typing analogy, you're right, we won't retype books by chance alone. However, random generation coupled with a selection process CAN reproduce books! That's what evolution is: random mutation combined with natural selection. Either one alone couldn't do squat, but both together can change a wolf into a coyote.
If you are saying some guy bashes his hand on a keyboard while another guy filters all the words that are coherent out of the nonsense can make a book, I would again say this is absurd....
Not science... just speculation. When calculated using simple probability concepts, you will see exactly what I mean.
Unintuitive, but it's true! I've written programs that do this (and others on youtube have too). That's right, if I have a million monkey banging out random letters, and I get to keep the ones I like and throw away the ones I don't like, then I can write a book like this! Of course... I'd rather just set up a computer to do this instead. Or have a DNA strand replicate itself a gazillion times. Your pick.
I would like to see the mathematical analysis and evidence of this.
In reality, when at one point there was only inorganic material, the rising of such material into the complexity of today is zounds more complex than writing a book from nonsense. The mechanisms by this happens and why is also zounds more complex.
But we will give you say the benefit of the doubt and assume many miracles and factors. Present the mathematical analysis of probability.
You're quite correct, DNA is more complex than a single book. My point is that it is indeed possible for order to arise from a combination of mutation and selection.
As for the 'mathematical analysis', if you're looking for a DNA specific model, I confess, I don't think there's any mathematical library of the probabilities of a given mutation given a certain genome and mating pair. I'm not sure what numbers you'd like to see.
I'm saying if you claim this is how life formed, or even apply this claim to a universal creation, I challenge you to prove the mechanisms. Fossil records, vestigal organs are not proof in this matter, because they are only your interpretation of what has occurred.They themselves do not offer the proof, you need to find a method to prove the hypothesis soundly, and so far, ther e is zilch.
Best proof I can offer is the natural production of protocells. Without any intelligence required at all, simple chemicals naturally combine to make complex chemicals, which combine to make chains, which combine to make self-replicating chains, when can naturally become enfolded by a phospholipid bilayer, like our cells have.
But that's my point: some RNA doesn't need DNA at all, it turns out. Some RNA strands form naturally. The nucleotides form naturally, and then are naturally attracted to each other.
There are different types of RNA, and the ones which code for usable proteins all depend on a specific code. RNA strands is too general of a term and can mean absolutely anything in that category, even if it has nothing to do with the debate, so you might want to be more specific.
In fact, the RNA molecules which have been observed to form naturally (under a reducing atmosphere, and other conditions) are actually capable of replicating themselves, usually with a specific code, but sometimes with errors (mutations).
Note that once we've reached this stage, natural selection can occur. Those RNA strands more likely to replicate will do so, and any beneficial mutations will be spread across the population.
What is the general probability of RNA strands forming without DNA existing?
Secondly, without RNA being synthesized from a guideline (DNA in particular) this means the RNA nucleotide sequence is more prone to be errorful and therefore produce a frameshift mutation, which is detrimental.
Well... the probability is 1, simply because this has been observed to happen. It's as if your asking "What is the probability of dew forming?"
And yes, your right, without a guideline, RNA is much more subject to mutation than DNA. This is, in fact, why it would evolve so much faster (and this is why viruses evolve faster.)
Illogical presupposition. You cannot prove your assumption to be true by just assuming it as true. RNA strands forming in the context I explained would be like throwing a deck of cards down the Empire State building and having each card be layed side by side of each other in an increasing order with only 1 inch between each card.
RNA is more subject to mutation means more pathogenic inhibitions coming out of that mutation. This is destructive, not constructive.
But as I've said... I'm pretty sure that we've already observed this process in labs! I'm not guessing here, I'm stating that we have seen RNA strands form spontaneously when the right chemicals are mixed, without need for a DNA strand.
That is to say, scientists have observed RNA strands form without the any DNA strands. They've already seen it happen.
Do you want me to find the actual experiments that were done, showing this?
@SalvationEternity777 Oh I was just looking though them and trying to understand each argument. This is the first time an argument on youtube hasn't bored me to death. So I just had a bit of difficult understanding that sentence.
@SalvationEternity777 OOOOOH shoot, sorry. That was taken from a comment you made. Ugh. I just realized how random it looked. That's why I was asking what it meant.
@GDawning I see, no harm done. But I believe it is a fair analogy (even more than fair) to compare to a Darwinian model of life, not speciation mind you, but everything from the origin to the universe to microevolution in a nutshell, which an atheistic worldview inevitably must take.
SalvationEternity777 @GDawning "Can you just explain to me what this sentence is saying. "
Perhaps after you explain what your comment has anything to do with this video.
Sorry for confusing again. The new youtube has got a me a bit annoyed.
To the monkey thing, I wasn't saying anything was wrong with the analogy just that people tend to forget the monkey would work like a program not really just tapping.
@FiverBeyond Oh the million monkey thing is actually referring to a program that pretty much goes through all the possibilities without repeating this is common mistake people make assuming it's to be taken literally.
@SalvationEternity777, I can PROVE, through DIRECT OBSERVATION witnessed by many in the USA in the past few weeks alone, that order both can and DOES increase over time on a local scale.
I can prove that in ONE WORD:
“Snowflakes.”
Do you know how snowflakes begin and form? There’s your proof. Astoundingly beautiful, symmetrical order arising from completely random chaos.
@COMALiteJ That's because of thermodynamic coupling ^.^ There is still a net increase in entropy. A system over time will go towards disorder ( a closed system) - an open system the rules are a bit more complex, and the earth is an open system, so there are more chances for outside energy sources to affect things (like the sun), but it is still affected.
@PersephonesFear, The Earth, or even the whole Solar System, is way, Way, WAAAAY smaller in comparison to the Universe as a whole, than a single snowflake (or even a single water droplet that goes into making a snowflake, or even a single water MOLECULE that goes into a single water droplet) is in comparison to the whole Earth, or even the whole Solar System!
@bertus198 Either worldview you take, a closed system is the best explanation. If the origin is similar to a theory like the "big bang", then all energy came from that single point of origin, and therefore is finite and closed.
If you take the theistic perspective, then already the argument is over cause you've taken the theistic perspective!
Best observable evidence for evolution is, in my opinion, the retroviruses found in human DNA.
Add to that the clear transitional forms in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy formed by taxonomy, the nested hierarchy formed by mitochondrial DNA, the nested hierarchy formed by geographical speciation, the observed instances of speciation, the observable creation of new information in the DNA, the presence of positive mutations, etc.
I didn't ask if empiricism is good for society or not, but rather why is it the main authority in a subject such as theism vs atheism?
Have you ever considered that perhaps an argument from deduction and analytical reasoning from fields like philosophy rather triumphs science when regarding theism and atheism?
Why do you propose that empiricism is the highest authority when it comes to reasoning?
How come you don't consider ramificiations from philosophy and presuppositional reasoning?
Keep in mind empiricism stems from those two in the first place, so I don't understand why we don't just use the root of all reasoning as a basis of argumentation for a world view.
Of course all those dead scientists were YECs. They didn't have the knowledge we do now.
That's why people say 'all scientists accept evolution'. They're talking about living ones who have all the evidence available. Its around 99% of National Academy members that accept evolution by common descent.
His point at the end about people disagreeing on the mechanism but accepting it as fact is rediculous. Evolution (the phenomona) and The Theory of Evolution are different things.
He says 'they don't understand how evolution happened, but they agree its a fact' and suggests that this is foolish or invalidates evolution.
Imagine he'd said the same about gravity. Einstein and Newton had different views about the mechanism of gravity, but both accepted it as fact.
This is why his point is rediculous. He doesn't get the distinction between fact and theory (mechanism). You can accept the fact without accepting any one particular theory.
'The error in your post is trying to relate the law of universal gravitation with the theory of evolution'
I'm making an analogy with the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution.
If you don't like that example, why don't we just use Atomic Theory. There are and have been many different models of atoms, but all of those scientists agree that atoms exist. It doesn't mean they are illogically claiming something exists, just because the exact model is up for debate
If all your saying is such a mutation of a sequence AAAA can occur, then there's no debate, everything agrees.
But you should realize those point mutations are not intended by the RNA that carried the code in the first place, meaning the translation of a sequence was an error (mutation).
This means the majority of your mutations would not be benefitial.
Correct, but the ones that are harmful cause the death of the organism, preventing them from reproducing. Likewise, the few that ARE beneficial allow the organism to reproduce more, and therefore these mutations are passed on.
Mutations occur when an error in protein synthesis happen. The logic is in fact that there are more harmful mutations than beneficial ones.
If say the cell wants to read a certain part a piece of genetic material to act upon, and that area of the genetic material has a point mutation, the cell or protein will not do the function it is intended.
Applying this to every single type of mutation, logically you could only calculate that say "harm" will be more present.
Open system: A system that can exchange particles with its surroundings. The Earth is therefore an open system.
2nd Law: In a system, a process that occurs must tend to increase the entropy of the universe.
If you want an example of an open system in which entropy decreases, try the inside of your fridge. In an open system, entropy can decrease but this requires work which causes an increase of entropy in the universe.
"Great claims require great evidence" goes both ways, prove that your fallacy ridden bible is true, you can't because you don't have the evidence to support it. This guy bashes too much. He should read some real science books.
He made a comment that he could never substantiate, and went on insulting the side, as opposed to arguing against it. That is disrespectful.
Please no name calling. Read my channel, the disclaimer. Continuing with disrespect will get you blocked, please read my channel before responding. You've been warned.
where is the name calling then? I'm beginning to think that you are just using name calling as something to hide behind. Please tell me, where is the name calling?
what a ridiculous video. "fuzzy words"...how about a fuzzy book. its amazing that christians believe their religion is the only true religion because god told them. yet, other religions are also based on the word of god.
if you want some good information on science check out neil de grasse tyson...he would put this dumbass to shame
creations show the height of intellectual arrogance! showing complete disregard for hundreds of thousands of man hours of work that span 150 years. all because it clashes with a 2k year old bronze age myth. im so sad i live in a time were 80% of the population still feels that these myths are valid and some of them go as far as to battle the scientific method in order to keep their deluded faiths alive. thats just selfish. ppls lives could be saved from the benefits of evolutionary science.
its dishonest to quote mine books for phrases that dont inform the true intentions of the author. Its dishonest to try and obscure the science then to try and discredit what u have falsely portrayed. Thermaldynamics is the study of heat and energy motion it has nothing to do with evolution! the earth being an open system means that information can and will be gained. even if the earth was lossing more energy then it was gaining; lossing energy can still produce complex systems such as crystals.
Energy is never lost. Energy is only transferrable into different kinds of energy. Most energy will be transformed into a waste energy called thermal energy.
This thermal energy is a useless form of energy and is the random movement of molecules. You cannot "lose" energy.
eithetr that or it (like u said) changes from one system within the earth system to another. that energy can be used to break chemical bounds or to create them.
kind of like rust...which is a chemical bound being formed between iron and oxygen...its becoming more complex without an outside force besides elecromagnetism, kenetic energy (which is what "thermal" energy is really called) and the presence or iron, water, and oxygen.
pretty much im saying systems lose energy...what ur pretty much doing is trying to use a strawman argument. energy can be lost. systems lose energy all the time.
You cannot lose energy at all. I haven't made a straw man argument, I haven't made an argument. I've only corrected what you said.
Energy cannot be lost, it is only transferrable. The energy from say an ice cube will over time turn into thermal energy, which is waste energy, caused by random motion of molecules. This happens over time, and this thermal (waste) energy increases.
But the energy is never LOST, it is only converted into a different kind.
strawman = misinterpreting an opinion or argument in order then refuting said argument. when i say loss of energy i dont mean the energy vanishes. what im saying is that the energy is no longer in the system. u didnt correct what i said because what i said was already correct. now to correct what u said. the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a glass of ice water will increase what this means is that the water will reach more and more of an equalibrium with the room.........
Kinetic energy is the energy from movement. You can observe it when you pitch a baseball. Thermal energy is the energy from the random motion of molecules. It is waste and is most abundant because energy is transferred into this form through friction.
(Conversion from say one "useful" kind to another "useful" kind of energy may not be 100%, some will be transformed into thermal (waste) energy due to friction)
facepalm! "thermal energy is the energy from the random motion of molecules" do u not notice that u said motion? ur kinda just making up ur own science here and its a little disheartening. when something is hot it means that the motion of the partticles is very fast. when something is cold it means the motion of the particles is very slow. when something heats up, what is happening is the particles are being hit either by light or by other particles. this creates motion in said particle.........
actually the energy is the same....im sorry but ur wrong. the movement of a large particle like a baseball is the same as a small one like a molecule. heat=kinetic energy i suggest u refresh ur physics knowledge.
i did...however my secular childhood wont allow me to accept religious claims without evidence or logical argument. i do wish i could believe but its just beyond my ability. its like convincing u that islam is the only true religion..its just not going to happen.
"Thermal energy refers to the kinetic energy of the microscopic
particles (atoms and molecules) that make up all samples of matter
- i.e. all objects." This was copied from a website, I was unable to post the full link however you can google that whole text. The website is clearly a good source of information.
@SalvationEternity777 I was saying the other guy was actually right in this case. Thermal energy and Kinetic energy is greatly linked. Thermal energy is just kinetic energy on the atomic level.
@SalvationEternity777 Oh no, it is. What I'm saying is that you argument there was correct however when he said it was kinetic energy also, he was correct.
"Thermal energy refers to the kinetic energy of the microscopic
particles (atoms and molecules) that make up all samples of matter
- i.e. all objects." This was copied from a website, I was unable to post the full link however you can google that whole text. The website is clearly a good source of information.
a cold galss of water has little otion in the particles but the hot foom has a lot of kinetic motion. when the particles in the room bump into the glass and the water in transfers the kinetic energy. for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction! there is no such thing as heat energy. when u throw a pitch that is kinetic energy and when u catch the pitch the energy is transfered into the glov e in the form of more kinetic energy. this makes the glove heat up ever so slightly.
The energy is actually transferred into thermal energy. It's nonsensical to say it transferred into kinetic energy in the glove (as the glove is stationary).
Now, please there's plenty of introductory physics articles just from google, so please leave comments pertaining to this video only.
are u really going to tell me to look up physics that u dont even understand...do me a favor and type in "Thermal energy" into wikipedia and scroll down to "other definitions"...now i expect an apology for this and ur claims about thermaldynamics......i dont feel i was disrepectful of u at all in fact even though u were sayong i was wrong even though i knew i was right i still didnt call u names or anythign yet u try and tell me to lok it up and u dont even know what ur talking about..haha
this does not impl that the ice water has energy within it that will transfer to the room. actually the heat of the room, which is actually kinetic energy, will penetrate the water increasing entropy. if u put a hot glass of water in the arctic then the entropy in teh glass would also be increasing because the system is reaching an equalibrium. the kinetic energy would be lost and diffused into the air. its possible for the entropy in a system to decrease over time even though its gainin entropy
systems can lose energy. if they arent close systems that is. u can keep saying it all u want but it doesnt change the facts. energy cant be created or destroyed but it can leave a system.
something else that falls under the realm of logical fallacies is the constant attempt to prove creation by trying to deiscredit evolution. this shows up in the titles of creationist videos like "why the earth ISNT millions of years old" and "how evolution is a danger". these types of things dont lead any credability to the efforts of and pseudoscientific claims the creationists also maybe making but it does show ur general lack of understanding for logical argument.
scientist never claim to prove evolution by writing a paper discrediting creation. in fact, they only publish papers on how they tried to discredit their own theories. then other scientists review their experiments and recreate them. to try and support ur ideas based on disproving another with fallacious arguments is dishonest and logically unsound.
At the end of the day, I don't see how Mike Riddle, who doesn't have a degree in biology, botany, zoology, anthropology, or a comparable field that would qualify him to provide anything resembling expert commentary on evolution, can get on the radio and start telling evolutionary scientists or educators what's "good science" and what's "bad science" and hope to have any credibility whatsoever. He doesn't provide a definition of "science," yet calls things unscientific. I think that's deceitful.
once again the creationist agenda rears its head; The World View Change.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not worldviews, irregardless of what your fearmongering preachers tell you. And if you people need to be under the penalty of Hell and eternal torture to keep you from being murderers and rapists, then you are the dangerous ones. And dont even deny that is your implication with the whole "world view" point.
oh for crying out loud, youre preaching now? did the truth hurt you so bad you need to to preach for the hurt to go away? You people are absolutely crazy.
I said nothing at all about christians, read what i posted again. Also, a preaching answers nothing in this debate that i thought we were having. Your point was that following the ToE leads to a worldview, i countered that it does not and that your (as in you creationists) state of mind is already worse off even if it did.
"And if you people need to be under the penalty of Hell and eternal torture to keep you from being murderers and rapists, then you are the dangerous ones."
It is hard to have a debate if you will not be respectful and allow fair standards, I've warned you enough to be respectful.
yes evolution is a worldview if u were a christian u would most likey b sayin creation is true, and we all have the same evidence but we see it diffrently, so therefore it is a worldview, all of ur "evidence" is deception and u guys will not let the public see ALL of the evidence because u know that if u do, evolution will fall
What statements are in textbooks, and how they are written are not examples of how science is done or what it is saying; nor is it a representation of what is in peer-reviewed journals. What are we specifically talking about here? Abiogenesis or biological evolution? Your fuzzy word examples are just extreme quote mining.
Bandwagon "All scientists accept evolution. No real scientist accepts creation."
All the scientists mentioned were prior to the theory of evolution. There's over a thousand scientists on the NCSE website just named 'Steve' that accept evolution, with 54% working in biology. And that's biological evolution.
all scientists who work in fields affected by the theory of evolution, is what he means. That would be all scientists who have actually studied and are educated in the ToE.
"Evolutionists" use bandwagon fallacy? HAHAHAHA. I've never heard a single person who knows evolution occurs say that all scientists are 'evolutionists'. A scientist doesn't mean they study biology and the evolutionary process of natural selection
When scientists use words like "must have" "we think", they're not saying they don't have evidence. They're saying they don't have absolute proof. This lack of faith in scientific theories far from being "unscientific" is what allows science to evolve.
This year's Golden Crocaduck Award will probably go to Kent Hovind, but I think Mike Riddle has a good shot at next year's award.
"Scientists do not have all the evidence, they really don't." And scientists' knowledge that they don't have all the evidence is what motivates their research and allows science to progress. If you're referring to the caricatures in my favorite's list, the answer is I find them humorous.
Salvation, youre mixing up "proof" and "evidence". Proofs are dealt with in mathematics, evidence are dealt with in science.
When scientists say "we think" or "we believe", it is entirely correct with the scientific method, which is describing an event with what evidence there is. And for what its worth, the theory of evolution has more evidence behind it thatn the theory of gravity.
"we think" in science means "this is what we propose and here is the evidence we have that supports our view - you are welcome to show how we are wrong"
given enough time , water over a large heat source will boil. < thats science
if any teacher actually says that the parents should sue.
please to quote the entire passage, quotemining is evil and breaks Gods commandment.
why is your full quote different from your phrase. "It must have formed" =/= "It must have evolved in the absence .."
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
*puts hand up and waves* the nylon eating bacteria. fusion of genes from apes to humans 23 pair not 24. sickle cell anemia.
SqueakerAlpha 2 months ago
Can anyone be this stupid?
wowamonn 2 months ago
So much stupid.
Pandonodrim 9 months ago
I have seen tons of proff that evolution is real.
Just look at the dog for exsample. All dogs breeds came from the same animal, the wolf. Over time we picked what abilitys we wanted on the new wolf puppys by mating the two wolfs with the abilitys we wanted the most.
Some wanted the wolf for hunting, some for looking after their animals, some wanted it for protection and they also wanted it to look a sertent way.
You can use DNA to see the changes from eatch breed and the original wolf.
Garachiyas 11 months ago
@Garachiyas That would be 'micro-evolution', or 'variation within a species'. The question is, can micro-evolution ever work to change one species to another, ie, express a new and viable genetic trait onto offspring that was not already in the species genepool? Dogs (like most speciation), are merely expressing traits already possible. Even fruit flies, through hundreds of generations, fail to create anything but fruit flies but rather diverge along their genetic code.
PersephonesFear 9 months ago
@Garachiyas this is natural selection. not evolution. each variation in species has resulted in a loss of information compared to the parent breed. evolution requires that information be gained in order for new species to evolve.
ferrel81 8 months ago in playlist Mike Riddle Refutes Evolution
The description references “AnswersInGenesis”.
The following is copy-pasted from their very own Statement of Faith, right on their Website (§4 [General], Item 6 [last item — scroll to bottom]):
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.…”
Translation: It doesn’t matter even if you SEE something with your OWN EYEBALLS — if it contradicts the Bible, it CAN’T be real!
COMALiteJ 1 year ago
This is a joke right? If a textbook says "Given enough time it will happen". That is a perfectly logical and scientific statement in many situations that simply dont happen instantly but over time. You guys are really reaching here lol. Example: given time, a glass of water in the freezer will freeze!!!!! Did i just blow the roof off that stupid statement in the film or what?
er876897 1 year ago
@er876897 We never say "we dont how it happened, but given enough time it will happen". Thats an outright bold faced lie, a pathetic slander attempt by creationists to undermine the scientific community. What we actually say is "We understand quite well how it happens, but it is an event that takes a lot of time to occur." There is NOTHING unscientific about stating an event takes time to occur. That is quote mining at its best.
er876897 1 year ago
Right on good points.
glendaweil 1 year ago
Oh god, what a load of garbage!
criskity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@criskityOh god, what a load of garbage!
OK Give us the answer to his question...What is your evidence for evol. ? This should be easy for you...
kabbbbage 1 year ago
Ouch! That kind of stupid must hurt
bansee100 1 year ago
I like the description.
neoverse 1 year ago
That Second Law of Thermodynamics was a complete lie! Plain and simple.
AlexanderDGraham 1 year ago
as a science student, i am amazed about the truths.
shinesthrudarain 2 years ago
Ever hear of Kent Hovind?
101Snaz 2 years ago
Good job SalvationEternity777, this guy is good. Like his vids.
101Snaz 2 years ago
1. Any science dealing with the past, including all geography, archeology, paleontology, astronomy, and cosmology, uses these words because all science is maleable. It is important to point out that you make fun of both "Must have" AND "Might have". Would you have biologists say it with certainty, or without certainty? Which one is best?
2. I've studied physics in college. I have a textbook on it with me here. The 2nd law clearly does not apply to open systems. It says so... in the law itself.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
The universe is a closed system, the law is applicable to the universe, and an specific atheistic worldview is therefore not acceptable.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
My point was that when the speaker says that the second law is NOT limited to closed systems, he is wrong, and misrepresenting that law.
As for the Universe being a closed system, you are completely right that it is. Thus, the total entropy will go down. Heck, the entropy in the Sun-Earth system will go down. This is accomplished by the wild increase of entropy in the sun required to produce the light. Thus, regardless of the order found on earth, the combined entropic change is positive.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
The speaker is right, but you are misrepresenting him.
He is NOT saying that it is impossible for entropy to decrease in a open system. He is simply saying it is possible for entropy to increase in both open and closed systems.
This is a true statement, there is nothing fallacious about this. I consider you read my comment over and let it sink in :)
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
I'm surprised that I need to point this out again...
At 5:43 "Well, it does apply to isolated systems..."
Ands 5:52 "Anybody that has worked in [thermodynamics] knows fully well that the second law works in all types of systems."
And my comment above, direct quote:
"My point was that when the speaker says that the second law is NOT limited to closed systems, he is wrong, and misrepresenting that law."
Now... at what point am I misrepresenting him?
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
You misunderstand what he means.
You are interpreting him saying that entropy does not decrease in an open system. He is simply saying entropy can increase in an open system.
If you disagree, simply prove in every open system, entropy decreases CONTINUOUSLY. The capitalized word is what the argument is about.
I think I have been very precise in my last few posts here.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
I think it's very clear that he's trying to show evolution to be impossible, by saying that the second law applies to open systems.
But if he were only saying that entropy CAN increase... then why on earth should that be evidence against evolution?
Of course entropy can increase, in any system. Entropy can also decrease in an open system. Now... since entropy can decrease, what exactly is the argument against evolution?
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
The fact that he says entropy can increase in any type of system shows disorder increases... in any type of system.
Simply said in any system, the order of complexity may not increase, but rather many times decrease. And such is an argument against many ramifications of atheism.
Aside from this, I hope you would check out this site and be helped by it.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
So that's his argument? That since it is possible for disorder to increase, this is somehow evidence against evolution? Or, on a different note, atheism?
How so? It doesn't hurt evolution at all for disorder to be able to increase. Heck, let it increase wherever it wants, just as long as it's still possible for life itself to gain in complexity. The rest of the planet can do what it likes.
Similarly with atheism. It is possible for things to become disordered, and therefore... God?
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
If disorder and entropy increases possibly in all types of systems, then there is no reason that our arriving at where we are is based on the increasing of complexity.
A more logical explanation is demanded and the argument pursuing this line can be further built.
You must keep in mind the term evolution used in debate encompasses a wide field and you should study the context in which it is used.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
I'm afraid that I don't follow your argument.
After all... if it is entirely possible for order to increase by natural means in an open system, then why could not the order of life come about in this way?
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
What you said doesn't really follow what you said before:
"That since it is possible for disorder to increase, this is somehow evidence against evolution?"
That is evidence against a non-theistic view, what you just said has nothing to do with the above.
Second, it is possible for order to arise for writers to bash on their keyboard, but that is a proposterous explanation to explain why books, or essays exist.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Very well then... how is the fact that it is possible for disorder to increase evidence against a non-theistic view?
As for your typing analogy, you're right, we won't retype books by chance alone. However, random generation coupled with a selection process CAN reproduce books! That's what evolution is: random mutation combined with natural selection. Either one alone couldn't do squat, but both together can change a wolf into a coyote.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
If you are saying some guy bashes his hand on a keyboard while another guy filters all the words that are coherent out of the nonsense can make a book, I would again say this is absurd....
Not science... just speculation. When calculated using simple probability concepts, you will see exactly what I mean.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Unintuitive, but it's true! I've written programs that do this (and others on youtube have too). That's right, if I have a million monkey banging out random letters, and I get to keep the ones I like and throw away the ones I don't like, then I can write a book like this! Of course... I'd rather just set up a computer to do this instead. Or have a DNA strand replicate itself a gazillion times. Your pick.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
I would like to see the mathematical analysis and evidence of this.
In reality, when at one point there was only inorganic material, the rising of such material into the complexity of today is zounds more complex than writing a book from nonsense. The mechanisms by this happens and why is also zounds more complex.
But we will give you say the benefit of the doubt and assume many miracles and factors. Present the mathematical analysis of probability.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
You're quite correct, DNA is more complex than a single book. My point is that it is indeed possible for order to arise from a combination of mutation and selection.
As for the 'mathematical analysis', if you're looking for a DNA specific model, I confess, I don't think there's any mathematical library of the probabilities of a given mutation given a certain genome and mating pair. I'm not sure what numbers you'd like to see.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Sorry for the late response.
I'm saying if you claim this is how life formed, or even apply this claim to a universal creation, I challenge you to prove the mechanisms. Fossil records, vestigal organs are not proof in this matter, because they are only your interpretation of what has occurred.They themselves do not offer the proof, you need to find a method to prove the hypothesis soundly, and so far, ther e is zilch.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Best proof I can offer is the natural production of protocells. Without any intelligence required at all, simple chemicals naturally combine to make complex chemicals, which combine to make chains, which combine to make self-replicating chains, when can naturally become enfolded by a phospholipid bilayer, like our cells have.
Now... wouldn't you agree that this is complex?
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Protocells contain RNA which was synthesized from a DNA strand using DNA transcription. You must account for the mechanism. :)
No doubt it's complex! Just as the Theists and Creationists have hypothesized!!
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
But that's my point: some RNA doesn't need DNA at all, it turns out. Some RNA strands form naturally. The nucleotides form naturally, and then are naturally attracted to each other.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
There are different types of RNA, and the ones which code for usable proteins all depend on a specific code. RNA strands is too general of a term and can mean absolutely anything in that category, even if it has nothing to do with the debate, so you might want to be more specific.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
No, RNA cannot mean 'absolutely anything'.
In fact, the RNA molecules which have been observed to form naturally (under a reducing atmosphere, and other conditions) are actually capable of replicating themselves, usually with a specific code, but sometimes with errors (mutations).
Note that once we've reached this stage, natural selection can occur. Those RNA strands more likely to replicate will do so, and any beneficial mutations will be spread across the population.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
What is the general probability of RNA strands forming without DNA existing?
Secondly, without RNA being synthesized from a guideline (DNA in particular) this means the RNA nucleotide sequence is more prone to be errorful and therefore produce a frameshift mutation, which is detrimental.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Well... the probability is 1, simply because this has been observed to happen. It's as if your asking "What is the probability of dew forming?"
And yes, your right, without a guideline, RNA is much more subject to mutation than DNA. This is, in fact, why it would evolve so much faster (and this is why viruses evolve faster.)
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Illogical presupposition. You cannot prove your assumption to be true by just assuming it as true. RNA strands forming in the context I explained would be like throwing a deck of cards down the Empire State building and having each card be layed side by side of each other in an increasing order with only 1 inch between each card.
RNA is more subject to mutation means more pathogenic inhibitions coming out of that mutation. This is destructive, not constructive.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
But as I've said... I'm pretty sure that we've already observed this process in labs! I'm not guessing here, I'm stating that we have seen RNA strands form spontaneously when the right chemicals are mixed, without need for a DNA strand.
That is to say, scientists have observed RNA strands form without the any DNA strands. They've already seen it happen.
Do you want me to find the actual experiments that were done, showing this?
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
@SalvationEternity777 RNA is more subject to mutation means more pathogenic inhibitions coming out of that mutation
Can you just explain to me what this sentence is saying.
GDawning 1 year ago
@GDawning "Can you just explain to me what this sentence is saying. "
Perhaps after you explain what your comment has anything to do with this video.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Oh I was just looking though them and trying to understand each argument. This is the first time an argument on youtube hasn't bored me to death. So I just had a bit of difficult understanding that sentence.
GDawning 1 year ago
@GDawning "Can you just explain to me what this sentence is saying. "
Perhaps after you explain what your comment has anything to do with this video.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 OOOOOH shoot, sorry. That was taken from a comment you made. Ugh. I just realized how random it looked. That's why I was asking what it meant.
GDawning 1 year ago
@GDawning I see, no harm done. But I believe it is a fair analogy (even more than fair) to compare to a Darwinian model of life, not speciation mind you, but everything from the origin to the universe to microevolution in a nutshell, which an atheistic worldview inevitably must take.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Oh no I was replying to:
SalvationEternity777 @GDawning "Can you just explain to me what this sentence is saying. "
Perhaps after you explain what your comment has anything to do with this video.
Sorry for confusing again. The new youtube has got a me a bit annoyed.
To the monkey thing, I wasn't saying anything was wrong with the analogy just that people tend to forget the monkey would work like a program not really just tapping.
GDawning 1 year ago
@GDawning ah okay, yeah I don't like the new youtube either.
Check out this site friend, it's important stuff if you haven't seen it:
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Oh the million monkey thing is actually referring to a program that pretty much goes through all the possibilities without repeating this is common mistake people make assuming it's to be taken literally.
GDawning 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777, I can PROVE, through DIRECT OBSERVATION witnessed by many in the USA in the past few weeks alone, that order both can and DOES increase over time on a local scale.
I can prove that in ONE WORD:
“Snowflakes.”
Do you know how snowflakes begin and form? There’s your proof. Astoundingly beautiful, symmetrical order arising from completely random chaos.
COMALiteJ 1 year ago
@COMALiteJ That's because of thermodynamic coupling ^.^ There is still a net increase in entropy. A system over time will go towards disorder ( a closed system) - an open system the rules are a bit more complex, and the earth is an open system, so there are more chances for outside energy sources to affect things (like the sun), but it is still affected.
PersephonesFear 9 months ago
@PersephonesFear, The Earth, or even the whole Solar System, is way, Way, WAAAAY smaller in comparison to the Universe as a whole, than a single snowflake (or even a single water droplet that goes into making a snowflake, or even a single water MOLECULE that goes into a single water droplet) is in comparison to the whole Earth, or even the whole Solar System!
COMALiteJ 9 months ago
@SalvationEternity777 and how do you come by that that the universe is a closed systeem...? thats new
bertus198 1 year ago
@bertus198 Either worldview you take, a closed system is the best explanation. If the origin is similar to a theory like the "big bang", then all energy came from that single point of origin, and therefore is finite and closed.
If you take the theistic perspective, then already the argument is over cause you've taken the theistic perspective!
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
Best observable evidence for evolution is, in my opinion, the retroviruses found in human DNA.
Add to that the clear transitional forms in the fossil record, the nested hierarchy formed by taxonomy, the nested hierarchy formed by mitochondrial DNA, the nested hierarchy formed by geographical speciation, the observed instances of speciation, the observable creation of new information in the DNA, the presence of positive mutations, etc.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Wow sweet this guy is was played in my Science class (Christian school)
Ascalon94 2 years ago
I've looked at both sides and have reviewed the evidence given by both creationist and evolutionist.
Scientifically, I am convinced that the creationist got it all RIGHT and that the evolutionist are incorrect, thoroughly.
To me, non-evolutionist are more accurate in what they present as facts than evolutionist.
Its becoming more and MORE clear to me how big of a joke evolution is. The joke is only getting more hysterical.
Thats just my opinion. I'm allowed to have one of those right??
ladyEulaelie 2 years ago
I didn't ask if empiricism is good for society or not, but rather why is it the main authority in a subject such as theism vs atheism?
Have you ever considered that perhaps an argument from deduction and analytical reasoning from fields like philosophy rather triumphs science when regarding theism and atheism?
If not, why not?
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Why do you propose that empiricism is the highest authority when it comes to reasoning?
How come you don't consider ramificiations from philosophy and presuppositional reasoning?
Keep in mind empiricism stems from those two in the first place, so I don't understand why we don't just use the root of all reasoning as a basis of argumentation for a world view.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
No swearing, or slander. Read my channel page,
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Speaking about bias, read some of the comments on my video of Richard Dawkins being stumped, that is the atheistic "defense."
I mean, if a creationist was on such a clip instead, how much atheists would be defending him with the same vigour and reasoning?
There is an even thicker bias in the atheistic community, keep your eyes open.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Of course all those dead scientists were YECs. They didn't have the knowledge we do now.
That's why people say 'all scientists accept evolution'. They're talking about living ones who have all the evidence available. Its around 99% of National Academy members that accept evolution by common descent.
His point at the end about people disagreeing on the mechanism but accepting it as fact is rediculous. Evolution (the phenomona) and The Theory of Evolution are different things.
firthio2 2 years ago
Substantiate your claim why his argument is ridiculous*.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
He says 'they don't understand how evolution happened, but they agree its a fact' and suggests that this is foolish or invalidates evolution.
Imagine he'd said the same about gravity. Einstein and Newton had different views about the mechanism of gravity, but both accepted it as fact.
This is why his point is rediculous. He doesn't get the distinction between fact and theory (mechanism). You can accept the fact without accepting any one particular theory.
Is that substantiated?
firthio2 2 years ago
Gravity is universal, hence the law of universal gravitation.
What he argues against is the mechanism of increasing complexity by mutation.
We can relate gravity through physics equation derived by physicists, but mutations have no consistency we can predict.
The error in your post is trying to relate the law of universal gravitation with the theory of evolution.
No, not substantiated.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
'The error in your post is trying to relate the law of universal gravitation with the theory of evolution'
I'm making an analogy with the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution.
If you don't like that example, why don't we just use Atomic Theory. There are and have been many different models of atoms, but all of those scientists agree that atoms exist. It doesn't mean they are illogically claiming something exists, just because the exact model is up for debate
firthio2 2 years ago
'What he argues against is the mechanism of increasing complexity by mutation' What do you mean?
If you take the sequence AAAA and then a mutation occurs to make it AAGA, its complexity has increased. Is that what he disagrees with?
firthio2 2 years ago
If all your saying is such a mutation of a sequence AAAA can occur, then there's no debate, everything agrees.
But you should realize those point mutations are not intended by the RNA that carried the code in the first place, meaning the translation of a sequence was an error (mutation).
This means the majority of your mutations would not be benefitial.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Correct, but the ones that are harmful cause the death of the organism, preventing them from reproducing. Likewise, the few that ARE beneficial allow the organism to reproduce more, and therefore these mutations are passed on.
RuskePerson 2 years ago
'This means the majority of your mutations would not be benefitial' True.
But don't confuse that with 'most mutations are harmful', which a common evolution-skeptic error.
The vast majority of mutations are completely neutral, a small proportion are beneficial, a small proportion are harmful.
firthio2 2 years ago
Mutations occur when an error in protein synthesis happen. The logic is in fact that there are more harmful mutations than beneficial ones.
If say the cell wants to read a certain part a piece of genetic material to act upon, and that area of the genetic material has a point mutation, the cell or protein will not do the function it is intended.
Applying this to every single type of mutation, logically you could only calculate that say "harm" will be more present.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
er...Actually my answer to you is yes and no. If a mutation occurs to a protein 'code', its around 70% likely to be harmful.
However, overall about 95% of mutations are neutral ones (in humans).
Remember though, science doesn't work by just thinking about a problem and thinking of the 'obvious' answer.
firthio2 2 years ago
Open system: A system that can exchange particles with its surroundings. The Earth is therefore an open system.
2nd Law: In a system, a process that occurs must tend to increase the entropy of the universe.
If you want an example of an open system in which entropy decreases, try the inside of your fridge. In an open system, entropy can decrease but this requires work which causes an increase of entropy in the universe.
Therefore, evolution breaks no thermo law.
firthio2 2 years ago
"Great claims require great evidence" goes both ways, prove that your fallacy ridden bible is true, you can't because you don't have the evidence to support it. This guy bashes too much. He should read some real science books.
devinmcelheran 2 years ago
Your claims about the Bible are unsubstantiated.
The Bible is true, open it, read it.
Please don't be disrespectful without first substantiating your comments, you've been warned, and the next time you'll be blocked
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
What was disrespectful about that? He merely pointed out that the burden of evidence also lies on christians. Don't be such a cry-baby
steinarrexfaroensis 2 years ago
He made a comment that he could never substantiate, and went on insulting the side, as opposed to arguing against it. That is disrespectful.
Please no name calling. Read my channel, the disclaimer. Continuing with disrespect will get you blocked, please read my channel before responding. You've been warned.
God bless.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
I'm really lost here. Where is the insult? What is the problem? Arguing for the other side is not an insult...
steinarrexfaroensis 2 years ago
"Please no name calling. Read my channel, the disclaimer."
acrm(.)webs(.)com
If I warn too much, I will just tend to block. Please make fruitful comments from now, thanks.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
where is the name calling then? I'm beginning to think that you are just using name calling as something to hide behind. Please tell me, where is the name calling?
steinarrexfaroensis 2 years ago
Read your own comments, and mine too. Your ad-hominem in your original post is blatant for anyone to see.
Please make rebuttals to the video if you disagree, otherwise, do refrain from posting, thanks.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
And just in case you are not interested in the topic, may you find some benefit from this Bible verse:
""For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
(John 3:16)
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Thank for for that enlightening verse
steinarrexfaroensis 2 years ago
what a ridiculous video. "fuzzy words"...how about a fuzzy book. its amazing that christians believe their religion is the only true religion because god told them. yet, other religions are also based on the word of god.
if you want some good information on science check out neil de grasse tyson...he would put this dumbass to shame
nukemed 2 years ago
Religion doesn't help anyone. Christ saves only.
Second, no cursing please. And be respectful/civil. Otherwise you'll be blocked, thanks.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
creations show the height of intellectual arrogance! showing complete disregard for hundreds of thousands of man hours of work that span 150 years. all because it clashes with a 2k year old bronze age myth. im so sad i live in a time were 80% of the population still feels that these myths are valid and some of them go as far as to battle the scientific method in order to keep their deluded faiths alive. thats just selfish. ppls lives could be saved from the benefits of evolutionary science.
keggerous 2 years ago
"2k year old bronze age myth"
please, no rhetoric like that either please.
If you don't substantiate what you say, don't say it. Also, respect channel host, thank you.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
its dishonest to quote mine books for phrases that dont inform the true intentions of the author. Its dishonest to try and obscure the science then to try and discredit what u have falsely portrayed. Thermaldynamics is the study of heat and energy motion it has nothing to do with evolution! the earth being an open system means that information can and will be gained. even if the earth was lossing more energy then it was gaining; lossing energy can still produce complex systems such as crystals.
keggerous 2 years ago
Energy is never lost. Energy is only transferrable into different kinds of energy. Most energy will be transformed into a waste energy called thermal energy.
This thermal energy is a useless form of energy and is the random movement of molecules. You cannot "lose" energy.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
u lose energy from the system because the earth isnt a closed system
keggerous 2 years ago
eithetr that or it (like u said) changes from one system within the earth system to another. that energy can be used to break chemical bounds or to create them.
keggerous 2 years ago
kind of like rust...which is a chemical bound being formed between iron and oxygen...its becoming more complex without an outside force besides elecromagnetism, kenetic energy (which is what "thermal" energy is really called) and the presence or iron, water, and oxygen.
keggerous 2 years ago
pretty much im saying systems lose energy...what ur pretty much doing is trying to use a strawman argument. energy can be lost. systems lose energy all the time.
keggerous 2 years ago
You cannot lose energy at all. I haven't made a straw man argument, I haven't made an argument. I've only corrected what you said.
Energy cannot be lost, it is only transferrable. The energy from say an ice cube will over time turn into thermal energy, which is waste energy, caused by random motion of molecules. This happens over time, and this thermal (waste) energy increases.
But the energy is never LOST, it is only converted into a different kind.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
strawman = misinterpreting an opinion or argument in order then refuting said argument. when i say loss of energy i dont mean the energy vanishes. what im saying is that the energy is no longer in the system. u didnt correct what i said because what i said was already correct. now to correct what u said. the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy in a glass of ice water will increase what this means is that the water will reach more and more of an equalibrium with the room.........
keggerous 2 years ago
The energy is still in the system :)
The energy that is useful in a form (chemical, kinetic, any) just becomes converted into thermal over time due to friction.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
well it depends what u define as the system....the earth loses energy into space...btw kinetic=thermal
keggerous 2 years ago
Kinetic =/= thermal.
Kinetic energy is the energy from movement. You can observe it when you pitch a baseball. Thermal energy is the energy from the random motion of molecules. It is waste and is most abundant because energy is transferred into this form through friction.
(Conversion from say one "useful" kind to another "useful" kind of energy may not be 100%, some will be transformed into thermal (waste) energy due to friction)
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
facepalm! "thermal energy is the energy from the random motion of molecules" do u not notice that u said motion? ur kinda just making up ur own science here and its a little disheartening. when something is hot it means that the motion of the partticles is very fast. when something is cold it means the motion of the particles is very slow. when something heats up, what is happening is the particles are being hit either by light or by other particles. this creates motion in said particle.........
keggerous 2 years ago
The energy from say a moving a baseball is not seen in the same effect of many random moving molecules.
(otherwise one of the words would be meaningless)
I haven't defined anything myself, it's just introductory physics
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
actually the energy is the same....im sorry but ur wrong. the movement of a large particle like a baseball is the same as a small one like a molecule. heat=kinetic energy i suggest u refresh ur physics knowledge.
keggerous 2 years ago
That's incorrect, but again, be on topic with the video, and leave civil respectful comments only please. Thanks.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
thermaldynaics has everything to do with the video sense it was brought up in the video to disprove evolution even though it doesnt involve evolution
keggerous 2 years ago
Maybe you are interested in this site, I hope you benefit from it
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
maybe furthering ur science education would benefit u a bit.
keggerous 2 years ago
did you check out the site?
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
i did...however my secular childhood wont allow me to accept religious claims without evidence or logical argument. i do wish i could believe but its just beyond my ability. its like convincing u that islam is the only true religion..its just not going to happen.
keggerous 2 years ago
@SalvationEternity777 actually
"Thermal energy refers to the kinetic energy of the microscopic
particles (atoms and molecules) that make up all samples of matter
- i.e. all objects." This was copied from a website, I was unable to post the full link however you can google that whole text. The website is clearly a good source of information.
GDawning 1 year ago
@GDawning "The website is clearly a good source of information." Common logical fallacy. But even then it's very vague what you are trying to prove
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Erm, did you actually google the website or just type?
GDawning 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 I was saying the other guy was actually right in this case. Thermal energy and Kinetic energy is greatly linked. Thermal energy is just kinetic energy on the atomic level.
GDawning 1 year ago
@GDawning Are you saying thermal energy is not the random motion of molecules?
If not, what exactly are you trying to prove?
And explain your post about the "million monkey thing" if you can.
SalvationEternity777 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Oh no, it is. What I'm saying is that you argument there was correct however when he said it was kinetic energy also, he was correct.
GDawning 1 year ago
@SalvationEternity777 Oh and name of common logical fallacy you pointed out please.
GDawning 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SalvationEternity777 actually
"Thermal energy refers to the kinetic energy of the microscopic
particles (atoms and molecules) that make up all samples of matter
- i.e. all objects." This was copied from a website, I was unable to post the full link however you can google that whole text. The website is clearly a good source of information.
GDawning 1 year ago
a cold galss of water has little otion in the particles but the hot foom has a lot of kinetic motion. when the particles in the room bump into the glass and the water in transfers the kinetic energy. for ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction! there is no such thing as heat energy. when u throw a pitch that is kinetic energy and when u catch the pitch the energy is transfered into the glov e in the form of more kinetic energy. this makes the glove heat up ever so slightly.
keggerous 2 years ago
The energy is actually transferred into thermal energy. It's nonsensical to say it transferred into kinetic energy in the glove (as the glove is stationary).
Now, please there's plenty of introductory physics articles just from google, so please leave comments pertaining to this video only.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
are u really going to tell me to look up physics that u dont even understand...do me a favor and type in "Thermal energy" into wikipedia and scroll down to "other definitions"...now i expect an apology for this and ur claims about thermaldynamics......i dont feel i was disrepectful of u at all in fact even though u were sayong i was wrong even though i knew i was right i still didnt call u names or anythign yet u try and tell me to lok it up and u dont even know what ur talking about..haha
keggerous 2 years ago
this does not impl that the ice water has energy within it that will transfer to the room. actually the heat of the room, which is actually kinetic energy, will penetrate the water increasing entropy. if u put a hot glass of water in the arctic then the entropy in teh glass would also be increasing because the system is reaching an equalibrium. the kinetic energy would be lost and diffused into the air. its possible for the entropy in a system to decrease over time even though its gainin entropy
keggerous 2 years ago
Kinetic energy is energy based from movement, which has nothing to do with "the heat of the room".
Heat is an energy transfer from one body to another. "Heat of the room" makes absolutely no sense in physical science.
You can observe kinetic energy when you pitch a baseball, kinetic energy does not "diffuse into air!" (whatever that nonsense means).
Kinetic energy is not lost, but is once again converted to a different kind. You cannot lose energy, this is basic physics.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
systems can lose energy. if they arent close systems that is. u can keep saying it all u want but it doesnt change the facts. energy cant be created or destroyed but it can leave a system.
keggerous 2 years ago
something else that falls under the realm of logical fallacies is the constant attempt to prove creation by trying to deiscredit evolution. this shows up in the titles of creationist videos like "why the earth ISNT millions of years old" and "how evolution is a danger". these types of things dont lead any credability to the efforts of and pseudoscientific claims the creationists also maybe making but it does show ur general lack of understanding for logical argument.
keggerous 2 years ago
scientist never claim to prove evolution by writing a paper discrediting creation. in fact, they only publish papers on how they tried to discredit their own theories. then other scientists review their experiments and recreate them. to try and support ur ideas based on disproving another with fallacious arguments is dishonest and logically unsound.
keggerous 2 years ago
please watch the language, thanks.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
please watch the spread of religious propaganda that underminds ppls actual work and actual attempts at helping the world : )
keggerous 2 years ago
Last warning, read my channel page... cursing and disrespect to the host will get you blocked.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
u removed my first post and thats the only one i swore in.....maybe ur just trying to be a bully and censor wha i have to say...
keggerous 2 years ago
"Evolutionist"
What is an evolutionist?
happyjihad 2 years ago
One who believes in the theory of evolution
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Then you might as well call me a 'gravitationist' or an 'Einstein relativist'.
happyjihad 2 years ago
At the end of the day, I don't see how Mike Riddle, who doesn't have a degree in biology, botany, zoology, anthropology, or a comparable field that would qualify him to provide anything resembling expert commentary on evolution, can get on the radio and start telling evolutionary scientists or educators what's "good science" and what's "bad science" and hope to have any credibility whatsoever. He doesn't provide a definition of "science," yet calls things unscientific. I think that's deceitful.
Caulfield789 2 years ago
1. There is no evolutionist, just like there is no gravitionist.
2. Evolution is a scientific theory, backed up by evidence from various fields of modern science.
3. Evolution has no meaning what so ever on my beliefs regarding spirituality or mysticism.
mickcr 2 years ago
Do you have a degree in life science or any field pertaining to physical science?
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
Gravity is not a world view, the implication of evolution does lead to one. Ther is a difference between biology and physics
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
once again the creationist agenda rears its head; The World View Change.
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not worldviews, irregardless of what your fearmongering preachers tell you. And if you people need to be under the penalty of Hell and eternal torture to keep you from being murderers and rapists, then you are the dangerous ones. And dont even deny that is your implication with the whole "world view" point.
jahoodunrama 2 years ago
Please don't be disrespectful on my channel, or imput false accusations, especially to the host of the channel.
We are redeemed by Christ. We will not live in sin because we have died to it.
Many of us were murderers, but we came to Christ because He said "come to Me."
We did, and we were cleansed, repentant, and declared righteous in God's sight.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
oh for crying out loud, youre preaching now? did the truth hurt you so bad you need to to preach for the hurt to go away? You people are absolutely crazy.
jahoodunrama 2 years ago
I replied to what you said about Christians.
Last warning, please be respectful, especially to the host of the channel.
God bless.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
I said nothing at all about christians, read what i posted again. Also, a preaching answers nothing in this debate that i thought we were having. Your point was that following the ToE leads to a worldview, i countered that it does not and that your (as in you creationists) state of mind is already worse off even if it did.
jahoodunrama 2 years ago
"And if you people need to be under the penalty of Hell and eternal torture to keep you from being murderers and rapists, then you are the dangerous ones."
It is hard to have a debate if you will not be respectful and allow fair standards, I've warned you enough to be respectful.
please visit this site.
acrm(.)webs(.)com
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
yes evolution is a worldview if u were a christian u would most likey b sayin creation is true, and we all have the same evidence but we see it diffrently, so therefore it is a worldview, all of ur "evidence" is deception and u guys will not let the public see ALL of the evidence because u know that if u do, evolution will fall
17DEMONHUNTER 2 years ago
What a lying sack of shit..Best argument for atheism yet. And of course the cowards turn off rating..
CHRISTANS LIE, always, deilberately, necessarily
chipfle 2 years ago
Sir, please provide evidence, and you will be blocked if you persist in being rude. God bless!
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
google "Wedge Document". Proof provided.
jahoodunrama 2 years ago
What statements are in textbooks, and how they are written are not examples of how science is done or what it is saying; nor is it a representation of what is in peer-reviewed journals. What are we specifically talking about here? Abiogenesis or biological evolution? Your fuzzy word examples are just extreme quote mining.
crocaduck 2 years ago
Bandwagon "All scientists accept evolution. No real scientist accepts creation."
All the scientists mentioned were prior to the theory of evolution. There's over a thousand scientists on the NCSE website just named 'Steve' that accept evolution, with 54% working in biology. And that's biological evolution.
crocaduck 2 years ago
All scientists? Be specific.
All scientists in America? All scientists in Israel?
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
all scientists who work in fields affected by the theory of evolution, is what he means. That would be all scientists who have actually studied and are educated in the ToE.
jahoodunrama 2 years ago
"Evolutionists" use bandwagon fallacy? HAHAHAHA. I've never heard a single person who knows evolution occurs say that all scientists are 'evolutionists'. A scientist doesn't mean they study biology and the evolutionary process of natural selection
Bobalithmiss1 3 years ago
there's no such thing as evolution? uh, do you know the definition of evolution in biological terms?
Bobalithmiss1 3 years ago
Don't you love it when idiots who don't know thing one about what they are talking about speak authoritatively on that subject?
This guy is one of the most ignorant people i've ever heard speak about science.
UmbrellaAl 3 years ago
99% rhetoric & hot gas, 1% fact
SalvationEternity777 3 years ago
Yeah, that's what I thought about Riddle's speech, too.
CarlW138lbs 3 years ago
When scientists use words like "must have" "we think", they're not saying they don't have evidence. They're saying they don't have absolute proof. This lack of faith in scientific theories far from being "unscientific" is what allows science to evolve.
This year's Golden Crocaduck Award will probably go to Kent Hovind, but I think Mike Riddle has a good shot at next year's award.
CarlW138lbs 3 years ago
Scientists do not have all the evidence, they really don't.
What's with you and the caricatures?
SalvationEternity777 3 years ago
"Scientists do not have all the evidence, they really don't." And scientists' knowledge that they don't have all the evidence is what motivates their research and allows science to progress. If you're referring to the caricatures in my favorite's list, the answer is I find them humorous.
CarlW138lbs 3 years ago
Salvation, youre mixing up "proof" and "evidence". Proofs are dealt with in mathematics, evidence are dealt with in science.
When scientists say "we think" or "we believe", it is entirely correct with the scientific method, which is describing an event with what evidence there is. And for what its worth, the theory of evolution has more evidence behind it thatn the theory of gravity.
jahoodunrama 2 years ago
Proof can come from logic as well, and we can use simply logic to show the impossibility of evolution.
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
thats not proof, thats deduction, and its still not proof beyond the deduction.
But im curious, what simple logic would 'prove' the impossibility of evolution?
jahoodunrama 2 years ago