Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

My point, dear slow person, is that you running around saying "quantum" makes you look even slower.

How?

a reply to: Phantom423

Because your assumption that zero = one, which even microsoft uberbot won't do, was at some point in this thread backed by "quantum mechanics says so" which is really funny and does nothing to your credibility that you'd want it to.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

Because your assumption that zero = one, which even microsoft uberbot won't do, was at some point in this thread backed by "quantum mechanics says so" which is really funny and does nothing to your credibility that you'd want it to.

Get yee a couple of good physics books - then we'll chat.

a reply to: Phantom423

I spent years listening to my private tutor, a physicist who earned phd and tenure for theoretical work yet has access to the most exclusive experimental labs for his contributions therein, to chat about it when ever you're ready.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

I spent years listening to my private tutor, a physicist who earned phd and tenure for theoretical work yet has access to the most exclusive experimental labs for his contributions therein, to chat about it when ever you're ready.

So where did I say - or anyone else say - that zero = one or quantum mechanics says so?

a reply to: Phantom423

Earlier in this thread, don't feel like paging back, definitely remember it.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

Earlier in this thread, don't feel like paging back, definitely remember it.

Quite unbelievable - you're quoting me - but can't find the quote. Here's what I think: your credibility = zero.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

"natural means"
The natural processes and said properties of the material world may be referred to as "natural means" So natural phenomena are caused by "natural means"...
Heh I'm not making stuff up...

Negative, ghost rider. I quoted the definition above. You are indeed just making things up. Prove that energy is not natural. Oh wait, you can't. Show me a single thing that has been created supernaturally with evidence. Oh wait, you can't. You just say things and think because you said it, that they are automatically facts. That's not how it works here. You need evidence. You need sources. You need more than rants based on assumptions.

And way to completely ignore the eternal argument that shows your hypocrisy.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

My point, dear slow person, is that you running around saying "quantum" makes you look even slower.

LMAO. So you insult her intelligence without even offering a rebuttal, when your understanding of science and QM is downright abysmal. And other creationists are starring posts with insults insults again. People are really desperate to prove a worldview and continue this unsubstantiated war on evolution. Just let it go.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Phantom423

I spent years listening to my private tutor, a physicist who earned phd and tenure for theoretical work yet has access to the most exclusive experimental labs for his contributions therein, to chat about it when ever you're ready.

That explains everything. You are home schooled. Sorry to say it, but you've been misled.

a reply to: Barcs

I've already presented the contradiction based on the first law of thermodynamics which has eluded you...
That shows energy can't have an origin of "natural means"...
You are wrong...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

I've already presented the contradiction based on the first law of thermodynamics which has eluded you...
That shows energy can't have an origin of "natural means"...
You are wrong...

You presented nothing but conjecture. You inserted the supernatural into the equation with no evidence for it. Where are your citations? Why are you afraid to back your claims up? Why are you lying about word meanings? Why can't you hold a conversation or type a proper sentence? You are being incredibly dishonest here, sorry.

Nobody's going to believe you without evidence no matter how many periods you put at the end of each line...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You actually did not show that it was a contradiction. Again as you've been repeatedly shown, if you want to use thermodynamics as your vehicle of proof, you have use thermodynamics. This means measurable factors, mathematics (probably some calculus in the very least). You can't just go "energy there for God". That is a non Sequitur argument, and thus a logical fallacy.

a reply to: wisvol

Lets take this as an admission of defeat then. If you can't find the quote, you can't prove it. I know you said you are not going to reply to me, that does not mean I shall not reply to you.

Here is how it works. Find the quote. Quote it verbatum. Deconstruct the comment. Otherwise: take your ball, go home, and sulk.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

I've already presented the contradiction based on the first law of thermodynamics which has eluded you...

It also defies the 2nd as well. The universe has demonstrated an ever-increasing magnitude of randomness/disorder. Despite this ever-decreasing availability of energy, evolution posits that conscious intelligent beings were ultimately generated from selected randomness. Can a hurricane go through a junkyard and create an apple computer? Not even in a billion years! Not to mention, said apple computer would have to be self-aware, be able to balance on two legs, and express emotions with an infinitude of depth. Oh yeah, and also heal its hardware when it gets damaged.

Wake from your slumber, brothers and sisters. Material reductionism is not the answer.

a reply to: cooperton

Um, junkyard tornado is one of the oldest straw mans in the book. Evolution does not work by randomly mixing up old parts until a human magically emerges. At least make an argument that hasn't been debunked for decades. Plus entropy applies only in a closed or isolated system. The earth gets energy from the sun, so assuming it would become disordered when it is constantly getting new energy is silly.

Awake from your slumber. Science denial is not the answer! It just makes your religion look bad. Stop sending your cause backwards by intentionally using old, outdated arguments that don't apply to the real world.

a reply to: cooperton

Do you get that the second dlaw ONLY applies to closed systems? Guess what we don't have here?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

I've already presented the contradiction based on the first law of thermodynamics which has eluded you...

It also defies the 2nd as well. The universe has demonstrated an ever-increasing magnitude of randomness/disorder. Despite this ever-decreasing availability of energy, evolution posits that conscious intelligent beings were ultimately generated from selected randomness. Can a hurricane go through a junkyard and create an apple computer? Not even in a billion years! Not to mention, said apple computer would have to be self-aware, be able to balance on two legs, and express emotions with an infinitude of depth. Oh yeah, and also heal its hardware when it gets damaged.

Wake from your slumber, brothers and sisters. Material reductionism is not the answer.

Entropy is not about disorder and randomness - that's a 30 year old definition. Entropy is simply the energy in a system that's not available for mechanical work. It's a concept that describes the thermodynamics of a system of molecules.
Once again, you have it all wrong. Get a few physics books and figure it out.