tonight on the History Chanel.

Let's watch it and talk about it.

Ehh?

tonight on the History Chanel.

Let's watch it and talk about it.

Ehh?

How come it doesn't happen all the time?

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to check this out.

long age evolutionary propaganda, like all secular brainwashing

I think its gonna be more about that "moment of magic" youve mentioned. Where suddenly there was life.

I dont wanna watch shit about monkeys either. This looks different. You should check it out.

what time will this program be airing?

8pm cst. So I guess nine for most of you.

ok, but what day is this show on?

Tonight 9PM EST.

tonight. (Monday)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

ah, but what t i m e is it on?

I may have to watch this one. It's on tonight, right?

LMFAO @ long debunked. Did your talking snake tell you that?

Hardly debunked by the wannabe creationist scientists. Did the talking snake tell you I was a Bill Mahr clone?

Yes we should all give equal time to the video made by a pastor/attorney based upon unbacked theology. What a joke.

let's all watch it at the same time while online so we can talk about the commercials.

I dont have cable :P

I dont have cable :P

Here you go....I made this especially for you..
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/6022/cableze8.jpg

Ooo, BNC, thanks! :P

I'm stuck at an auction trying to buy a car so I can go home a d watch this shit dammit!

It's not adjusted for Eastern time here so you guys will see it before me.

btw, the "life began in a warm little pond" stories date back to the time of Darwin, when simple life was considered to be essentially nothing but goo...we now know even the most primitive life, even a single cell, even a single DNA strand is fantastically complex, and the "warm pond" stories are wholly inept to explain anything scientifically...it's basically science in reverse: religious dogmatism

amazing how the very same thing they accused the Roman Catholic church of doing back then (and was in fact guilty of) they now do themselves! the supreme irony....

the warm-pond theory isn't accepted in scientific circles, either. Life started with RNA, and not DNA, also. It's kind of a chicken/egg situation, but RNA has been shown to synthesize many of the chemical reactions required for life. RNA orginally linked amino-acids into protiens without the help of those protiens. If you think about DNA just stumbling in to existence, as complex as it is now, it seems implausible, but things likely started much simpler, and built, collectively, over time. Hell, single-celled organisms had the plant for 3.5 billion years..it's really not that far fetched

haha I'll prove mine if you can prove yours. Seriously, though, you kinda missed the point of the collective building. The junkyard/tornado analogy is really common, but it isn't right. In that analogy, a corvette, an incredibly complex machine, is assembly instantaneously, by chance. In what I'm saying. things are built, incremantly, in an infinite number of tiny steps. Also, a tornado doesn't descriminate about success, where as, evolution does.
I'm not saying that these ideas are 100% correct, but the entire inference is based on logic, and repeatable experimentation/proof. The regligous stand-point is based on what other people have said.

Oh geez not the tornado analogy. If that were the case the creationist model would represent the ultimate Airbus A380 being built from a dust field.

I think that's beyond the scope of this thread. It's one thing to understand the chemistry behind genetics, but sub-particle quantum physics is beyond everyone here. It's one thing to say that all these particles work too intricately to have come from nowhere, but no one here really understands, so it appears to be at an impass..

At least he did not use the Chewbacca defense.

Great program. I'm about 45 minutes into it and so far it has gone into good detail about the theory of abiogenesis.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/statistics-article/views.gif

finally made it home and watching it now.

worth torrenting?

If you are interested in a decently detailed program of the working scientific theory of our origins then I recommend it. It did a really good job of showing what we know (with evidence) and what science is currently working on.:bigthumb:

Great program. I'm about 45 minutes into it and so far it has gone into good detail about the theory of abiogenesis.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/statistics-article/views.gif


Why doesn't abiogenesis happen all of the time? If life didn't have to happen, why did it happen at all?

Why doesn't abiogenesis happen all of the time? If life didn't have to happen, why did it happen at all?

Just because it is thought to have happened does not make it a normal occurance.

it's Lord-of-the-Rings-esque story-telling for atheists, based on absolutely nothing empirical

haha. Quite the statment from Mr fairy tales himself.

"Chaos" huh? Is that how you fluff up your completely made up model? Supernatural design can be described as bewildered ignorance. People who stand dumbfounded instead of investigate empirically.

We will see who looses. Creationism is being destroyed by the day as the answers to everything you consider unexplainable continues to be published.

by the second Law, the most universal law there is, with ZERO exceptions, open OR closed systems, everything in the universe progressively moves to a lower energy state, rendering the fantasy of progressive mutations leading to higher life sheer and complete nonsense, with zero evidence

We have already had this discussion and you cant even get your open and closed sysems right.



nice spelling, but how to you propose to prove Creation wrong, genius?

No need to disprove something that doesn't exist. How about you prove that Jesus walked on water?

Oh look we have a grammar Nazi. Somebody is grasping at straws.



hardly, darwinists are just spewing out more bullshit...fewer people believe it


As the creationists scatter in attempts to dumb it down.

no, I smashed your tired, erroneous arguments that the second law is only valid in closed systems...FALSE...it applies equally everywhere, at all times

"The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time."

Feel free to demonstrate a case where the second law applies in an open sysem.

Once again. Instead of posting up the same stupid quote which you think smashes the statment of a closed system. I challenge you to post up an open system that demonstrates the second law applies.

name one where it doesn't! it always applies

So says your one quote taken out of context. Now feel free to demonstrate it.

the evidence is ubiquitous...the burden of proof is on you

Not really. I'm not the one making the claim that the second law applies in an open system. I say that it doesn't. So in your vast level of knowledge on the topic, post up an open system that demonstrates this.

haha I did a search myself and found the creationist guide to arguing.

"I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book."

I suggest you learn somthing.

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

"Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law. So why do people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics? What is the second law of thermodynamics?"

"Today, it is customary to use the term entropy to state the second law: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. As long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy, the paraphrasing just given of the second law is equivalent to the earlier ones above. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so (because energy is conserved) its complement, entropy, can never decrease.

A familiar demonstration of the second law is the flow of heat from hot things to cold, and never vice-versa. When a hot stone is dropped into a bucket of cool water, the stone cools and the water warms until each is the same temperature as the other. During this process, the entropy of the system increases. If you know the initial temperatures of the stone and the water, and the final temperature of the water, you can quantify the entropy increase in calories or joules per degree.

You may have noticed the words "closed system" a couple of times above. Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, available energy has decreased and entropy has increased as required."

Life is not an open system

That’s what you may "think". But that is not the stance taken in the scientific community. We don't know enough about the universe to make such a bold claim.

wrong....it is a stance taken by many in the scientific community...the universe cannot be infinite, only the nut-jobs believe in multi-universes

Once again you speak on the level of somthing you want to be true. But is just not the case.

yes, it is the case...are you claiming to speak for the entire scientific community now? who the heck are you? what are your credentials? your arrogance is beyond words

I'm not claiming to speak for the entire scientific community. But you are attempting to making factual claims that are not true. There is to much unknown about the universe, dark matter, ect.. to make such claims. Many scientists believe the Universe is neutral do to these things. I have even quoted Hawkins saying this before and in turn you made a thread dedicated to denouncing him.

getting back to this strange post, are you saying life is a closed system?

Yes

haha I did a search myself and found the creationist guide to arguing.

"I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book."

goddamnit, enough with the keyboard/tornado metaphores. They aren't applicable. Here's an analogy that IS applicable:

Take 2 decks of cards, and shuffle them together. Take 9 cards out, and see if they are ordered and suited. They won't be. The odds of that happening are huge. But suppose you(playing the role of evolution) are able to descriminate between what you want and dont want, so that when you get several cards from the same suite, you can put them aside, and keep picking cards. Given enough time, you will eventually get a sequential, suited set. That's how this works. You can't just keep over-looking what makes this all plausible. While shuffling the cards is entropy, evolution provides a way of maintaining some order

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080608.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/cityacademies/Creationism_Cafe.jpg

http://www.axisfilms.co.uk/news/dumb.jpg

"that-one"
hahahah

SA, ya


and



http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2614&stc=1&d=1213767795

^^^^

Lmfao

:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

my SA or my 1337 ms-paint skillzz haha

free-form select is my friend.

SA, ya


and



http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2614&stc=1&d=1213767795

Damn thats too funny!

SA, ya


and



http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2614&stc=1&d=1213767795

Damn thats too funny!