Real Science Friday: The Energy Order of the Universe

[Jefferson]

RSF: The Energy Order of the Universe

This is the show from Friday January 8th, 2010.

BEST QUOTES OF THE SHOW:

Ever since the discovery of the 2nd law [of thermodynamics] physics has been faced with the question of why the universe began in a low entopy [ie."everything is organized"] state.

If disorder results only from order, then what is the initial source of the order of the energy of the universe?

Since energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally and every natural or spontaneous process tends to disorder, then the origen of order cannot be natural but it must be supernatural.

SUMMARY:

* Real Science Friday on the Energy Order of the Universe: Fred Williams and Bob Enyart discuss a fascinating article in the Fall 2009 Creation Research Society Quarterly by James Powell on the energy burned by stars throughout the universe. See also Bob Enyart's debate on Entropy and Evolution!

* Come Out to Your Local March for Life: Whatever state you live in, please come to the March for Life. If you're in Colorado, then you are cordially invited to Colorado's 2010 March for Life on the steps of the Capitol downtown at noon on Friday, January 22, 2010! Come on out. We'll have a FABULOUS TIME of fellowship!

* The Personhood Movement Has Exploded Into 40 States! So please help the state personhood efforts get the signatures they need to re-criminalize abortion! If you live in:

Colorado: could you help circulate the Personhood Colorado & Colorado RTL 2010 petition? If so, just click or call 303-753-9394.
California: please visit the CA Human Life Amendment site to get a petition and start collecting signature for the Lord and for the innocent child!
Any Other State: If you live in any other state, can you help to advance personhood via the 2010 ballot or in one of three different ways?

We all need your help!

Today's Resource: Please consider emailing this helpful description of Focus on the Strategy II to another Christian who may be an asset in the personhood movement after viewing this groundbreaking DVD!

 

[Nick M]

This was a good show.

 

[Alate_One]

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

 

[Lighthouse]

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

Your blathering does no good if you cannot provide the evidence against this position. Show us how entropy is not a problem for evolution or shut up and go away.

 

[Nick M]

Arguing that entropy is somehow a problem for evolution is like saying that airplanes cannot fly due to the laws of physics, while they are zooming over our heads.

Yet another Wrong Science Friday classic

No. Physics says high pressure will push low pressure. Makes perfect sense that a wing takes flight. Try again. Get saved.

 

[Nick M]

I also like how he pointed out laws are discovered, not made. Which is why people often rebel against man made laws that are unjust.

 

[Alate_One]

Your blathering does no good if you cannot provide the evidence against this position. Show us how entropy is not a problem for evolution or shut up and go away.

No, its a giant distraction. Evolution is well demonstrated, by DNA,fossils, biogeography etc. A slightly better analogy would be the statement that bumblebees cannot fly via the known laws of physics, yet they fly circles around us.

You're arguing the theoretical when there's plain and obvious evidence to confront.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

No, its a giant distraction. Evolution is well demonstrated, by DNA,fossils, biogeography etc. A slightly better analogy would be the statement that bumblebees cannot fly via the known laws of physics, yet they fly circles around us.

You're arguing the theoretical when there's plain and obvious evidence to confront.

But it sounds good. It's catchy, easy to remember, and seems convincing to people who don't understand the actual science involved. Isn't that what really important to creationists?

 

[Lighthouse]

No, its a giant distraction. Evolution is well demonstrated, by DNA,fossils, biogeography etc. A slightly better analogy would be the statement that bumblebees cannot fly via the known laws of physics, yet they fly circles around us.

You're arguing the theoretical when there's plain and obvious evidence to confront.

Coward.

 

[Alate_One]

Coward.

I'm the coward? Your lot are the ones hiding behind theoretical ideas while refusing to acknowledge any actual *data* that contradicts your point of view (which is of course, all of it).

Want to falsify evolution? Here's how.

You need to find a fossil of something before it could have possibly evolved.

For example . . .

Show us a sea otter, whale, walrus, penguin, even a bony fish in the Cambrian - The Burgess Shale formation.

All of this fossilized seabed and not ONE FISH! Can you imagine fossils forming underwater today with other creatures but no fish?

Find us a bird or any sort of modern placental mammal in the permian era, living alongside gorgonops or dimetrodon (and no neither of them are dinosaurs).

Find us a shorebird, muskrat, raccoon or other modern vertebrate shoreline animal living alongside tiktaalik and other early tetrapods which also lived along the shoreline.

Betting you won't show us anything.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm the coward? Your lot are the ones hiding behind theoretical ideas while refusing to acknowledge any actual *data* that contradicts your point of view (which is of course, all of it).

You're the one claiming the data proves this theory wrong and then refusing to post any of that data.

Want to falsify evolution? Here's how.

You need to find a fossil of something before it could have possibly evolved.

For example . . .

Show us a sea otter, whale, walrus, penguin, even a bony fish in the Cambrian - The Burgess Shale formation.

All of this fossilized seabed and not ONE FISH! Can you imagine fossils forming underwater today with other creatures but no fish?

Find us a bird or any sort of modern placental mammal in the permian era, living alongside gorgonops or dimetrodon (and no neither of them are dinosaurs).

Find us a shorebird, muskrat, raccoon or other modern vertebrate shoreline animal living alongside tiktaalik and other early tetrapods which also lived along the shoreline.

Betting you won't show us anything.

Prove those periods actually existed first.

 

[Alate_One]

You're the one claiming the data proves this theory wrong and then refusing to post any of that data.

Huh? If I posted ALL of the data supporting evolution, well it would take up the entire forum. How about you get out a textbook on evolution and actually read it.

Prove those periods actually existed first.

I mentioned ONE period. However what I asked for has nothing to do with accepting periods or not. I asked for organisms being found together, in the SAME rock layers. If everything lived at the same time, there should be absolutely no difficulty in finding a deer, bird or snake skull alongside tiktaalik, or ichthyostega, or dimetrodon or any of the others.

 

[chrysostom]

entropy is only a problem for the atheist

evolution is only a problem for those who only have the Bible

 

[Stripe]

I'm the coward? Your lot are the ones hiding behind theoretical ideas while refusing to acknowledge any actual *data* that contradicts your point of view (which is of course, all of it).

Want to falsify evolution? Here's how.

You need to find a fossil of something before it could have possibly evolved.

For example . . .

Show us a sea otter, whale, walrus, penguin, even a bony fish in the Cambrian - The Burgess Shale formation.

All of this fossilized seabed and not ONE FISH! Can you imagine fossils forming underwater today with other creatures but no fish?

Find us a bird or any sort of modern placental mammal in the permian era, living alongside gorgonops or dimetrodon (and no neither of them are dinosaurs).

Find us a shorebird, muskrat, raccoon or other modern vertebrate shoreline animal living alongside tiktaalik and other early tetrapods which also lived along the shoreline.

Betting you won't show us anything.

There are far easier ways to falsify evolution than trying to find something that most likely cannot be found.

 

[Alate_One]

There are far easier ways to falsify evolution than trying to find something that most likely cannot be found.

But it should be so easy if everything lived at the same time! You're telling me you can't find ONE example of a fossil that's alongside of things it shouldn't be?

If you CAN'T find it, and we see the pattern evolution predicts over and over again, then we have very strong evidence for evolution.

Another way, show that the DNA of humans is closer to something, anything over apes. Show any evolutionarily impossible relationship via DNA.

Betting you'll say that's impossible too.

 

[Stripe]

But it should be so easy if everything lived at the same time! You're telling me you can't find ONE example of a fossil that's alongside of things it shouldn't be?

No, but given hydrology it is only to be expected that strata generally contain only one type or size of fossil.

If you CAN'T find it, and we see the pattern evolution predicts over and over again, then we have very strong evidence for evolution.

:blabla:

Another way, show that the DNA of humans is closer to something, anything over apes. Show any evolutionarily impossible relationship via DNA.

There are better ways to falsify evolution than to accept your assumptions as accurate.

 

[Alate_One]

No, but given hydrology it is only to be expected that strata generally contain only one type or size of fossil.

Really? That's not what we see in the Burgess Shale, there's an incredible diversity of sizes and shapes of living things that are preserved. So tell me, why aren't there any fish there since fish also come in all sizes and shapes? Or crabs or lobsters for that matter or snails, which would have very similar buoyancy to everything that IS preserved?

Nor does it explain the permian strata that has plenty of medium sized bodied land animals, mammal-like reptiles, but not a single mammal or bird. There's no difference in size shape or mass of bodies that would explain their total absence.

Evolution is THE best explanation for the patterns we observe.

There are better ways to falsify evolution than to accept your assumptions as accurate.

To falsify something you must assume it first and then find evidence that does not match. Its very easy to do with creationism.

 

[Stripe]

Really? That's not what we see in the Burgess Shale, there's an incredible diversity of sizes and shapes of living things that are preserved.

I only see one type of fossil in that selection. :idunno:

Unless the person was also found fossilised, but I reckon he's just for scale.

So tell me, why aren't there any fish there since fish also come in all sizes and shapes? Or crabs or lobsters for that matter or snails, which would have very similar buoyancy to everything that IS preserved?

You tell me. It's you that believes this deposit formed over millions of years. Why aren't there any other kinds of fossils included? Did they all stay away en-masse for all that depositional period?

In a quick, sorting event one can conceive of ways in which only one type or only one size might be selected and fossilised. There is no way to rationally account for such an observation if you believe this took a long time.

Nor does it explain the permian strata that has plenty of medium sized bodied land animals, mammal-like reptiles, but not a single mammal or bird. There's no difference in size shape or mass of bodies that would explain their total absence.

:rotfl:

No difference between birds and land animals? Evolutionists are stupid!

And, once again, the absence of variation in favour of a particular type or size of fossil is a huge problem for the long ages crowd, but completely reasonable in the light of a global flood.

What happened to all the insects in this deposit, Alate? The leaves? Droppings?

No?

Why not? :think:

Evolution is THE best explanation for the patterns we observe.

No, it's a fairy tale.

To falsify something you must assume it first and then find evidence that does not match. Its very easy to do with creationism.

I know. :thumb:

It's impossible to do with evolution mostly because evolution isn't science.

 

[Alate_One]

I only see one type of fossil in that selection. :idunno:

Unless the person was also found fossilised, but I reckon he's just for scale.

Uhh one type? I think you need glasses. What's a type to you, Stripe?

This is the same thing as this to you?

You tell me. It's you that believes this deposit formed over millions of years. Why aren't there any other kinds of fossils included? Did they all stay away en-masse for all that depositional period?

The deposit itself didn't form over millions of years, It probably formed via the collapse of part of a reef.

What do you mean "why aren't there other kinds?" The Burgess shale has representatives of at least a dozen different animal phyla. Are you asking why there are no fish or crabs? If so, its because they hadn't evolved yet. We can certainly see an ancestral chordate - something that would eventually evolve into fish.

In a quick, sorting event one can conceive of ways in which only one type or only one size might be selected and fossilised. There is no way to rationally account for such an observation if you believe this took a long time.

But we DON'T see fossils of one size! Are you so blind that you can't see what's in the picture I posted? One is one meter long, others are only a few centimeters.

No difference between birds and mammals? Evolutionists are stupid!

That's not what I said. I was talking specifically about buoyancy, and it depends on the mammals and birds in question, plus of course pterosaurs which should all be together since they all overlap in size and shape. Stop being stupid on purpose.

It's impossible to do with evolution mostly because evolution isn't science.

It is science. I just told you how to falsify it. But you won't even try because you already know you can't, the evidence doesn't match a one time mix-burial of everything. Hydrologic sorting doesn't explain the pattern, at all. Explain why a deer and a gorgonops couldn't fossilize together, assuming they actually did live at the same time.

 

[Stripe]

Uhh one type? I think you need glasses. What's a type to you, Stripe?

Similar sort of creature. Are they not similar?

The deposit itself didn't form over millions of years, It probably formed via the collapse of part of a reef.

:rotfl: Your reefs are magic.

Just one reef falling down? Did it cause a landslide that swept the entire breadth of the deposit? Why didn't that trap everything under it? Why only these things you've linked to? Is your hydrology magic as well? :chuckle:

What do you mean "why aren't there other kinds?" The Burgess shale has representatives of at least a dozen different animal phyla. Are you asking why there are no fish or crabs? If so, its because they hadn't evolved yet. We can certainly see an ancestral chordate - something that would eventually evolve into fish.

Oh. Is that where you're going with this? Nice idea, but doesn't cut it when pretty much every deposit is of the same nature.

But we DON'T see fossils of one size! Are you so blind that you can't see what's in the picture I posted? One is one meter long, others are only a few centimeters.

Uh, yes we do see deposits with only one size included.

It is science. I just told you how to falsify it. But you won't even try because you already know you can't

Evolution can't be falsified. :up: