this pisses me off.

madd you really cant prove that
'pro - peagna? What the fuck is that?' - my friend looking at my Propaganda DVD (he's not to bright)

'nah im still going to ski, im just going to board when im... bored...' darryl hunt

yea, i guess not, but you really can't prove half the shit said on here


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

PhatTim, how does evolution contradict itself?
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

evolutiuon is sooooooooo confusing, it does contradict itsself, but i can't really think of any examples right now...i might read my 3 papers later to refresh my memory


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

It actually does contradict itself. Evolution states that through the 'millions of stages of development' in a species, this could be cell development or whatever, the organ (for example) would go through millions of stages of uselessness before it became something worthwhile. Evolution also states that useless things are done away with, thrown out, not used anymore. So how then does something so uselss, go through further stages of uselessness to become something usefull. It can't.

And the whole theory of evolution that Darwin developed (neanerthals to men) starts from the basis for their being something their to evolve anyway. So what if men did evolve from apes, well then where did apes come from? Tell me that.

And yeah, I can't prove that there is an end to space but you sure as hell can't prove that there isn't.

And Andy, you are talking about the vacuum in space (right?), vacuum is still an existence, vacuum exists! I'm talking about the complete and utter existence of non-existence, total nothing, not even a vacuum, Mad_trixx knows what I mean.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

apes could have evoled from 4 legged walking apes, then they could have evovled from some type of amphibian, then they could have evolved from a fish. then it could go one for awhile to a very simple species that started from water.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

I don't know everything about evolution. You (phattim) probably know more about it than i do, but i think that evolution is just a more logical reason than god just saying 'let there be man'
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

riiiiiight

so where'd the fish come from?? And if you say it came from a pool of amino acid goop that somehow magically turned into a single cell that asexually reproduced to become an organism then I'm going to punch you.

So why would apes have evolved from a four-legged walking creature. And if they did then why are there still four-legged walking creatures.

The whole thing with evolution is that if you look at any diagram of it, there are boxes with little pictures and explanations of the different stages with 'evidence' of fossils and stuff. These little boxes are all joined by little wee dotted lines. okay, cool. Well, tell me what happens in those dotted lines?? HOW does one box turn into the other box. I went to a 3rd year Anthropology lecture at my university about human evolution. I went up to the lecturer after the class who was an American educated professor on the topic and I said to him, 'dude, yo, explain to me what happens on these dotted lines.' and he said 'I don't know.', that was enough for me. If a professor in Evolution (who has turned creationist through his studies) can't tell me what the dotted lines mean then most of you guys don't have much of an arguement do ya. (except for Kami, coz he knows what's what.)

But I'm still willing to argue with ya'll, I'm quite enjoying this.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

Yo Skibum, I'm not trying to shoot you down or change your views on where life came from.

I'm just challanging your ideas and giving you my opinions. It's totally cool that you think that's more logical, I respect that. For me I think it's more logical that God did create man.

The reason people grabbed hold of evolution so hard out all those years ago is because they didn't want to belive in God, because they wanted another explanation so that they wouldn't have to believe in God. Darwin himself, on his death bed, admitted that he didn't believe in the theory of evolution at all. But yeah, if you want to belive it that's fine, I'm not telling you that you can't.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

i believe in the evolution of homonoids, but not the evolution of living species..it doesn't make sense to me that a living things just appears in a tide pool...nope, not cuttin it for me, it's gonna take a LOT more than that to change my mind


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

exactly, that's not evolution, that's the complete transformation of species. Not gonna happen.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

I respect your opinion as well Phattim. I don't know what exactly happens on those dotted lines, but I think it has to do with the genes somehow changing/advancing from generation to generation. Like how over many and many generations, somehow something gets into the DNA and changes the genes to slowly form into a better, more complex and more advanced lifeform. That might be a explanation for a the dotted lines.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Oh Jesus... we talked about evolution here once before... thanks guys now I get to go root through pages of posts to go find this one... crap hahaha.... i'll be back.

A vacuum is just a term for nothing, the vacuum itself isn't this tangible physical thing... well yea basically it isn't. Ok I shall return w/ evolution information, but I won't be arguing against Tim, there's some interesting stuff.

good, i like learning about this kinda stuff. i await your postings.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Woohoo found it, old evolution talk can be found here, https://www.newschoolers.com/PHP/Forum/ReadTopic.php4?post_id=10005355&catid=2&start_num=50


Actually evolution is semi-proven, and I think the evolution that most of us tend to think of evolution has been proven.

Well, it is important to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution which involves biological variations within a natural species or biological kind (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is truly scientific, but macro-evolution which teaches that biological variations in nature can occur and did occur across natural species or biological kinds (especially from simpler species to more complex ones) is not proven or supported by science even though it is widely taught as scientific fact. Basically when we think of evolution we think of the ape into the man, the body slowly sophisticating. This has been proven, our evolution has been traced to some place in africa, and statistically the further away humans have gotten from this spot, the more successful they have become as a society. The problem with macro-evolution being proved is that, proof would rely on the total creation of new groups genes in the body, something like this would be evolution like dog->cat->bird.

But there are genes in the body that work as switches (where the head grows, blah blah blah), but some of these genes also prevent certain types of growth. In response to bodily demands these genes can stop preventing the growth or characteristic of whatever. So technically if we grew a third arm and the body had a gene which just simply prevented this, it would be consistent w/ micro evolution. (I'm not sure if there is a gene like that or anything). However for macro evolution to occur, you'd have to have a bunch of those kind of genes eventually become active to turn a cat into a dog.

Another intriguing thing about micro and the present theory of macro evolution is that it is consistent w/ most christian teachings, and even christian organizations admit this.

So basically evolution exists as most of us think about it.

Very interesting. thank you for that post.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Hey im the first to say i am so happy im alive. i love my life, but if you break t down, life isn't that special. it just so happened that things like ultra simple bacteria and stuff started developing. they werent any thing special, but life is really just something that happened because the conditions were right. i dont think anyone can really say why it started to develop, but it did, and im glad.




Go Big or go home

Then Go Bigger!
My backyard- the new home of 30ft table top!

word to that. I love life so much. And I am so grateful to be alive and living.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Yo dude, they haven't proven evolution, they never will, they can't. They can make up evidence for it that may be convincing but there is never going to be outright proof of it. Yeah sure there are some skeletons and things lying around. There is no outright proof, still. Ask Kami about that. They have sure not proven evolution to be a fact. There is not blood and bones proof. Just the odd skull that is suposedly in the middle between ape and man. When you say macro-evolution, you are talking about the complete changing of species. I'm sorry but that just isn't going to happen dude. There is no way you are going to have a fish change into a four legged walking animal and then from that into a two legged walking animal. It's just not going to happen. Adaption however is a different story. Species changing slightly within itself to survive better and optimise survival within a natural environement, that is a different story, adaption, not evolution.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

and evolution and creation scientifically all go against entropy which is supposed to increase over time, so there has to be something that made this all happen
----------------------------------------
Got Yoohoo?

Hahaha... don't get me started on entropy, I take a course on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy, it doesn't violate the entropy principle because the earth is not a closed system, much less an isolated system, which is one criteria for the entropy principle, you can have local decreases in entropy when energy is put into something, but it results in an accompanying positive total increase in entropy of the universe.

Tim, micro-evolution is essentially adaptation, which is fact. I didn't say macro-evolution is proven, but we do know of genes that prevent changes in the body that act like switches, and if these switches eventually got all turned on over time and others were turned off, macro evolution could occur, the probability is just sooooo very small. Essentially anything can happen in the universe, it's all probability.
Your cup of heated coffee could actually jump up off your desk spontaneously if somehow enough molecules all were moving upwards at the same time along w/ those of the coffee cup, but the probability is just so small we'll probably never see it happen. To invision this let's say we have a coffee cup that holds 200mL of water. We can assign these molecules a range of movement, For convenience we'll just assign the molecule to have 3 different axis, and 360 different choices for degree of movement on those axis. So each molecule has (1/360)^3 probability of moving in any direction, including up. However that's just the probability of one molecule, so we have 200g of H20 which is 11.1 moles H20. To find molecules we just multiply this by Avogadro's number (6.022 x 10^23) to get 6.69 x 10 24 molecules of H20! that's a shitload... and since each of these have a probability of (1/360)^3 (2.14 x 10 -8) we multiply that by the number of molecules we have.. and the probability of them all moving upward so the cup would spontaneously jump up is 1.43 x 10^-31 so
.0000000000000000000000000000143%
Not very likely in the course of our lifetimes lol. But... it's still possible.

exactly dude, you just proved how incredibly unlikely it is. And that's just for one particle. The theory of evolution has way too many 'ifs' and 'somehows' and 'maybes' and 'probabilites'. As you said, it is all just probabilites.

Another point. The theory of evolution states that adaption will only occur if there is a need to adapt and change. This makes perfect sense. Why then did 'early man' have the need to adapt. Most of todays animals aren't adapting like that, haven't been and probably won't. Why then was it neccessary for apes to turn into men. Or why would a four legged animal turn into a two legged one which is going to be way slower, less agile and have a higher center of gravity, it makes no sense.

I'm not trying to say that adaption (micro-evolution) isn't true, because I believe it is. But it isn't really micro-evolution, it IS adaption. I think that a speicies will change/adapt to make better use of its' environment.

and also, some other guy suggested that we evolved from fish way earlier on. If that is the case, why do we still not have gills?? Gills would be a huge advantage for hunting and gathering which is pretty much all early species ever did (before NS.com was invented anyway.) And why are we still not evolving today? Sure we might be adapting, but we're not evolving.

As you proved gravteck, the probability is so incredibly minute that it just would not occur. It's like a tornado cruising over a junk yard full of useless crap and assembling a complete working 747 Jumbo. When that happens I might change my views.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

Actually that probability wasn't for one molecule, that was for all of them in the cup. And don't say it's not going to happen, it can, just PROBABLY won't in any timespan that we could obvserve it.

exactly

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

If God made humans, and the Earth, and the Universe and shit... then explain to me why humans have been arouund for only 10,000 years as a valid species, while Dinosaurs, for example, were around until around 65 million years ago, and there was other life millions of years before that... so, are you saying that God has a constant hand in everything thats going on? So he just created Humans out of nowhere? I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Personally I believe in a sort of 'seeding' of the planet with organic material by a comet or other such cosmic means... nothing to do with aliens, or anyhthing... just a comet striknig Earth with basic Amino Acids aboard, thereby 'seeding' the planet with organic material, paving the way for carbon based life. Then evolution of a species... and if you put it this way, evolution makes a lot more sense...

Darwin talked about Natural selection, right? Well, put it this way.. (remember we have eons and eons of time where this takes place) and I know this is overtly simplistic.

Say in part of a fishes habitat... the food sources, oxygen in the water, whatever... soime resource is running out, yet is easily available in the surrounding land/air/whatever, fish are dying slowly as the resource becomes less and less available.. So some fish find it possible to flop on land to get this whatever... mabye some learn to quickly snatch food from the land arouund them, whatever, so the fish that do this survive, while the ones that dont, die... eventually, only the ones that are best at this skill (therefore the ones with the determining 'genes' that affect this skill) survive, and as they get better and better, mabye some start to develop some adaptation, perhaps longer fins that let them scramble on the land, perhaps something that lets them intake oxygen from the air (crude lungs perhaps even)... you can look at that mudhopper animal from wherever... its the fish that can hop up on land for short periods of time. Over eons, the fish gradually move onto land, and the evolution continues... now this isnt random, this is egged on by changes in their enviroment, and through mutations that develop in response to the need for rapid change, not just random. Therefore, all you need is the outside pressure from the enviroment, and the fittest survive, while the ones without this trait die... therefore, only ones with the trait exist... therefore the species aquires this trait...

God that post was kinda wierd and rambling... It's hard enough to form a coherent sentance after seeing that SHIT thats called 'Jackass: The Movie'




-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

Andy, what's so hard to understand about God creating everything like that. And yeah, he does have a hand in everything, absolutley everything. And so dinosaurs were around a long time ago, and humans only a few thousand years, what's so hard to understand about that? If you read the first page of the bible you will understand that men were made last, after all the animals and plants and everything like that.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

The bible also states such things as men living 900 years, God creating the world in 7 days, God destroying cities for the hell of it... hell, it even tells stories about incest and rape and other cool shit...

You have to remember, the Bible was written like 900 years after anything in it happened, and so much has been revised, that the only thing the old testament is good for anymore is a good old-fashioned fable... I'm sure most of it happened, to a degree... but when I start hearing about 900 year old men, and God raining fireballs down on Earth, then, thats where it ends for me.

I could bring something completely random up and say this... think about this... what if God to humans was actually an advanceed racec of aliens... is it too hard to believe? Read some stories in the Bible in THAT context... it seems really wierd...

As Arthur C Clarke once said... Advanced Technology looks like Magic to people who dont understand it.


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

the bible's all symbolic


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

PhatTim, the reason we don't see any animals evolving now is becuase humans have not been studying the specific anatomy of animals long enough to see any significant changes. we don't see any changes in humans by means of evolution becuase we haven't been studying the human anatomy long enough to see and changes. That's the reason why you don't see any animals evolving, we just haven't had the technology long enough to measure any advancements in their anatomy.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

if the bible is all symbolic, then is it symbolic when it says 'god said let there be man, and suddenly there was man', is that symbolic?
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

it could be...i don't know, i'm not a professional, that's just my opinion


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

Actually we do see animals evovlving, unfortunately we dont see there genetics evolveing but we do see individuals evolveing, as an expirement fishes where taken from the bottom of a stream and put into other ponds towards the top of the stream were less natural predators excisted. After while scientists noticed that the fishes moved into the top where much more bigger than the fish in the bottom becuase without natural predators there was to need to be small to hide, so here we see the evolution of individuals, and with time genetics follow the brain and mutate into an evolution for the species, so we do see evolution in everyday life.
++++++++++++++++++++
Keep it live 24/7 365
*Proud Member Of The Hobum Posse
Move Bitch! Get Out The Way! Get Out The Way Bitch! Get Out The Way!

that's adaption though, not evolution....one organism can't evovle. evolution is the change of a species of a series of time through small mutations


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

that's what i mean by how we can't see that, cuase we haven't been around long enough to study the anatomy.

I don't see evolution as a complete changing of species; I see it as an advancement of species. You say that there is no way that a species can just change from a fish to a walking mammal, and i say that it does. I don't think that you realize the time span we are talking about inbetween the various species. It takes thousands and thousands of year probably for one specie to get one advancement in their genes. This advancing takes place over a long, long, time period.
-----------------------
peace--->chris
***Go big or go home**Just Bodagin'***

Proud Member of the Hobum Posse

Andy, you made the primary slip-up that almost everyone makes when they read that. 7 days. Yes, but we have since invented time. One day back then could have been 10,000 years, 10 million years, it could have been more. There is no way of measuring just how long a day was back then.

And also, if humans have only been around for like 10,000 years or so then how did they evolve to start with?? You just told me that it takes millions of years for evolution to 'happen', that's kinda interesting don't you think seeing as we've only been here for a little while.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

Okay, I've been doing some thinking and some researching. Here's my very well supported arguement, feel free to challange it.

Yo Gravteck, I thought you said that you had studied, thermodynamics?? Coz you should know that natural selection contradicts the 2nd law which states: 'left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop'. Evolution tries to say the opposite. A species cannot change its' own genetic code. This is, has and always will be permanently encoded in the DNA of that creature. It quite simply cannot become another organism, it just is not possible. A dog for example can mutate but not become a fox. And a mutation cannot lead to evolution either because mutations are harmful and are generally not carried on in the genetics of the next generation. Take a working wrist watch for example, it cannot change into anything else other than a watch, okay, well, you can 'mutate' it by changing something randomly inside and it will be harmful rather than better for it, hence proving natural selection a pile of ass.

Now I will move onto evolution. Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete. The fossil record amply supplies us with representation of almost all species of animals and plants but none of the supposed links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, or reptile to birds and mammals are represented nor any transitional forms at all. There are essentially the same gaps between all the basic kinds in the fossil record as exists in plant and animal life today. Simply, there is no existence of any kind of fossil or remains of any creature with partially formed anythings to suggest the changing between species. Therefore evolution = nuh uh.

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Secondly, the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity. Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world. Famous evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and animals, 'Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an 'embarrassment, something to be explained away.' - Interesting don't you think that an evolutionist said that??

'Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists.' - Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Yep, so that's what I think, let's hear what you have to say about that aye.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

well now i have it really bad. i go to a fucking catholic school and i don't believe in god! you think that it is bad when people take you to youth group meetings wait until you get shit from priests nuns and theology teachers.

Goddamnit natural selection does not fucking violte the second law!!!!!!! The second law only applies to an isolated system, where no matter and energy is exchanged by the surroundings of the system. The earth is not an isolated system... we receive so much energy, and even trade matter w/ outerspace. Jesus... iron rusts, that's not a deterioration, it becomes more a more coherent substance, but the reaction of rusting releases even more heat into the surroundings which leads to more 'deterioration' elsewhere. Most authors you read apply entropy andt he 2nd law INCORRECTLY... goddamnit, life and evolution on earth does not violate the entropy principle, I know I sound pissed right now, but that's cause I know this.

Yah and I also know this. I wasn't even talking about entropy. I said that the 2nd law of thermodynamics was contradicted.

And how can you possibly justify the rusting of iron as not being a non-deteriorating thing?? That's just stupid dude. And I fail to at all see what that has to do with evolution or natural selection. Rust is a chemical reaction due to the oxidisation of materials, that has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

back to God,
Not too many people have written about religons other than christianity. Or maybe they have and I missed them because the posts became too long to read...






*yawn*

I guess we just ended up arguing about evolution and creation again, hehe, as usual.

And gravteck. How do you explain the fact that there is absolutley no fossil or skeletal proof of evolution and that every single fossil or skeleton ever found and used as proof of evolution can be completley 100% categorised into either the 'human' or 'monkey/ape' areas? And the fact that there is no evidence anywhere of partially formed (evolved) limbs or beings?? That's pretty solid and convincing to me that it is nothing more than a theory.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

Im aware but hate talking about it.......I get bad dreams.



ever wonder if iliterate people get the full effect of alphabet soup???

My post about rust had to do w/ local decreases in entropy. Rusted iron is a much more coherent structure than the iron and disordered oxygen that precedes it. Iron is a much more ordered structure existing in a stable lattice. On the outside this seems like something that shouldn't happen spontaneously because a more ordered structure exists. However this new found order is accompanied by more disorder, which is due to the amount of heat liberated from the reaction, which ends up corresponding to a positive increase in entropy in the universe. I mentioned this because natural selection is the same thing, you seem to be gaining more order, but this order is only localized and the state of the universe is becoming more disordered because of the local order created.

How is the second law contradicted? In what, I don't understand, the second law isn't disputed by any knowledgeable scientist. The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted. No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a source and its complete conversion into work, and no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body (sole result meaning it would occur spontaneously). I'm having a problem seeing what contradicts this.

bro, you're clouding the issue. Bringing in things that really have nothing to do with it. The second law is this: 'left to themselves, all things tend to deteriorate rather than develop'. Rust is a deteroiration, there is no way that you can say it isn't. And also, rust is a chemical reaction, the metal reacting with oxygen. Evolution has nothing at all to do with chemical reactions, I don't know what you're trying to get at here, you can't draw conclusions or compare things with something that has nothing to do with the topic.

The 2nd law states that if left to it's own devices, things will get worse rather than better. To use your example: making the iron worse and useless rather than better and more useful.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

holy shit.....i am so lost. i leave for a day and i come back and all the posts are too damn long to read


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse

haha, dude you should read them anyway, they're all very interesting.

~~Phunkin Phatt Phreerider~~
#Cut the Jibba Jabb Crazy Fools! Start Skiing!#
*Be greatful, everyday, for snow, mountains, gravity and skiing*
@Talent Is Important, But Image Is God!@

I would read them all, but I tried that a few months back when there was another thread like this... Same two people, too.
So no.
But kudos to gravteck and phat tim.






*yawn*

lol, this is like a battle of the titans... there is no way i'm getting in the middle of this again... fun shit.

its so sad when I'm 17 and I understand what they are talking about, lol


-Andy

Attack of the Killer Stop Signs!
This Winter, You're coming to a dead halt'

'The 2nd law states that if left to it's own devices, things will get worse rather than better. To use your example: making the iron worse and useless rather than better and more useful.'

Worse... useless, what is this? Those terms have nothing to do w/ physics and thermo, I wrote those definitions right out of my second law textbook. You are misapplying the second law and using it metaphorically. If you can find a physics or thermo textbook that puts the 2nd law in those terms, I'll stop, but you'll never find one that says it. The internet is full of 2nd law bullcrap. The second law has more to do w/ chaos, and that it always increases in isolated systems and the universe do to natural processes. Rust is simply a more coherent (less chaotic) form of the existence of iron and oxygen together, which is also less chaotic then the oxygen atoms flyin around. However the reaction that is required for rust to happen requires a liberation of heat that increases the chaos of the universe more than the chaos was decreased in the rust reaction. I can show mathematical calculations if you like.

I'm not trying to cloud anything, I was drawing a comparison of an event that is easily mathematically evaluated, to the existence of life and natural selection, that is so complex I couldn't show it in calculations. I was trying to show that the coherence of life doesn't violate the entropy principle or the second law, by comparing another process where more coherence is achieved, but doesn't violate these principles.

i read some of them, but a lot are getting off subject


'Anyone got any hot sisters they wanna sell?'
-skipimp_

*Proud Member of the HoBum Posse