# An awesome new science show



## ambush80 (Jun 5, 2016)

It's a new show to me, anyways.

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365762336/

I didn't know whether I should have posted this here or in the campfire.  Where do y'all think it belongs?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 5, 2016)

This is how you get a 747 from a tornado in a junkyard.  The junkyard is the machine with the bouncing magnets (20 minute mark) that begets amino acids that begets organisms that begets people who make 747s.

http://www.pbs.org/genius-by-stephen-hawking/home/


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 9, 2016)

I don't like posting in the campfire forum.  Too much drunken silliness.  This program relates to many of the ideas floated here, so here is were it should be.

I watched most of the episode with the martini and the floating plates.  Good stuff.

I like the idea that when science is understood we don't need magic anymore to explain the world.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't like posting in the campfire forum.  Too much drunken silliness.  This program relates to many of the ideas floated here, so here is were it should be.
> 
> I watched most of the episode with the martini and the floating plates.  Good stuff.
> 
> I like the idea that when science is understood we don't need magic anymore to explain the world.



I watched all of them over the course of 3 days. It was a little sad to me that they used grown ups to conduct experiments that should have been conducted by Jr. High school students.  It was sad to me that I don't know alot of that stuff.  I feel like I got gypped by public education.  If my daughter doesn't know that stuff by 8th grade it's my fault.

You should see the one called _Where Are We_.  The demonstration that they did about the distances in our solar system was revealing.  I've seen similar demonstrations but this one was particularly cool.  They had a model of Earth that was about the size of a billiard ball, the moon was the size of a large marble and the sun was an inflatable sphere about two stories high. After they determined how far apart they all should be they walked the distance from the Earth back to the sun.  They were walking about three miles an hour and it took them about about 8 minutes.  They were about half a mile away (I think).  Turns out that they were walking the equivalent of the speed of light!!!  Makes you wonder how we'll ever leave the Solar System. 

We're hairless apes, fumbling around on this speck of dust killing each other over fables.  No wonder aliens would rather molest cows than talk to us.

The one about evolution is really cool too.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

I read this yesterday about Evolution. 

 I once heard this story told by Richard Dawkins in a lecture I saw him give. I hope I can do it justice:

Imagine a bookshelf, hundreds of miles long. At the end of the bookshelf where you are standing is a picture of you. Right next to it is a picture of your father (or mother, if you like). Next to that is a picture of your grandfather (or grandmother if you prefer the maternal lineage). On and on it goes for miles and miles – one branch of your ”family tree” stretching back into the far-distant past.

Travel down the length of the bookshelf and meet your ancestors. If you are of Asian descent, somewhere around 50 pictures in you may encounter Genghis Kahn who was reputed to have sired more than 3000 offspring, and whose Y-chromosome appears to be present in about 8% of all modern Asian males. Continue heading further down the bookshelf to the picture of your 5,000x great-grandfather. What does he look like? Well, he dresses funny, and he sure needs a shave, but he is unmistakably human. Perhaps a couple of miles further down the shelf is a picture of your 10,000X great grandfather – the Neanderthal.

But keep going further. What does your 500,000x great grandfather look like? Now things begin to look a quite a bit different. 500,000x great gramps seems to be a primate (although he doesn’t look like any ‘modern’ primate), but he no longer looks human. He's smaller. He doesn’t walk fully upright like you. He has prominent brow ridges, a protruding jaw, longer arms and larger canine teeth than you. If you were somehow able to bring him into modern times, he would be incapable of mating with his own descendants – a different “species” altogether. But you’re still only at the beginning of this journey – lot’s more shelf to cover and pictures to see!

Go much further still, until you arrive at the picture of the shrewish animal that is the common ancestor of all mammals – including humans. Still further, and encounter the primitive, eely common ancestor of all vertebrates. Keep going past the picture of the worm-like creature that was the common ancestor of all the chordates. Travel the whole distance – to the very opposite end of the bookshelf, and see the picture of the microscopic, single-celled organism that is the common ancestor of all modern life on earth.

This is but one path down the almost infinitely branching tree of life on earth that leads back up to the twig we call “human” and the infinitesimal little bud called “you.” But note that each picture on the shelf looks very similar to the hundreds or even thousands of pictures close to it on either side – you have to travel a great distance away to see substantial differences between pictures at all.

Now... retrace your path back to the 'modern' side of the bookshelf, and on your way home, point to the individual ancestor of yours in whom "God" first installed a "soul."


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2016)

http://www.pbs.org/genius-by-stephen-hawking/home/


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I read this yesterday about Evolution.
> 
> I once heard this story told by Richard Dawkins in a lecture I saw him give. I hope I can do it justice:
> 
> ...



That's cute. One must still ask where all the pictures of the grandfathers between 100 and 500,000 have gone, not to mention those further beyond. The "bookshelf" you speak of is only a few feet long when you eliminate the void space. That seems hardly enough for anyone to honestly build such an idea as evolution, much less believe it to be true.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> That's cute. One must still ask where all the pictures of the grandfathers between 100 and 500,000 have gone, not to mention those further beyond. The "bookshelf" you speak of is only a few feet long when you eliminate the void space. That seems hardly enough for anyone to honestly build such an idea as evolution, much less believe it to be true.



Evergreen, now back up your claims.
Show us all where humans came from.

And for the record, I didnt speak of any bookshelf.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Evergreen, now back up your claims.
> Show us all where humans came from.



What claims? All I said was it's disingenuous to believe Dawkins' "bookshelf" analogy.



bullethead said:


> And for the record, I didnt speak of any bookshelf.



Fine... typed, if you prefer; you typed it six times.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> What claims? All I said was it's disingenuous to believe Dawkins' "bookshelf" analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine... typed, if you prefer; you typed it six times.


Well what should I belive and why?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> What claims? All I said was it's disingenuous to believe Dawkins' "bookshelf" analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine... typed, if you prefer; you typed it six times.


Explain to me how humans became human. 
Where did we start, how long did it take?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 9, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> That's cute. One must still ask where all the pictures of the grandfathers between 100 and 500,000 have gone, not to mention those further beyond. The "bookshelf" you speak of is only a few feet long when you eliminate the void space. That seems hardly enough for anyone to honestly build such an idea as evolution, much less believe it to be true.



While a few photos happened to be stored in just the right conditions to be preserved in a fashion that can be meaningfully studied to ascertain their anatomical composition long removed from their youthful luster, most photos did not enjoy such a stable repose and as such are indistinguishable from the dust settled on so many ancient tomes. However those few lucky morsels, scattered about perhaps at 134,256 and 322,478 or 409,176 and the story they tell: their similarities, differences, and location  spin an old but voluminous yarn about what they were like, and how they evolved over time.

Of course we need not hang our hats on the fossil record, as magnificent as it is, to find support for evolutionary biology. But alas, I have come to learn that most who question the science behind evolution simply aren't interested in being convinced. They have their own reasons for not believing, that all too often have all too little to do with whether or not they should.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> While a few photos happened to be stored in just the right conditions to be preserved in a fashion that can be meaningfully studied to ascertain their anatomical composition long removed from their youthful luster, most photos did not enjoy such a stable repose and as such are indistinguishable from the dust settled on so many ancient tomes. However those few lucky morsels, scattered about perhaps at 134,256 and 322,478 and 409176 and the story they tell: their similarities, differences, and location  spin an old but voluminous yarn about what they were like, and how they evolved over time.
> 
> Of course we need not hang our hats on the fossil record, as magnificent as it is, to find support for evolutionary biology. But alas, I have come to learn that most who question the science behind evolution simply aren't interested in being convinced. They have their own reasons for not believing, that all too often have all too little to do with whether or not they should.


That will get you two opposable thumbs up!


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 9, 2016)

Hey look! We have our own Israel.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Hey look! We have our own Israel.



Nahhh, no tell tale signs like self loathing,  comparisons to biblical figures, asking then answering own questions or having eleventeen ways of unnecessary continuation per sentence.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 9, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Hey look! We have our own Israel.



Hardly.
Bullet has a lot of knowledge,but Israel has wisdom.
No comparison.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Hardly.
> Bullet has a lot of knowledge,but Israel has wisdom.
> No comparison.



Swing and yet another miss.
He wasn't referring to me at all.

Things like this are good examples of why you type  before you understand what you are reading...or just type without reading based off guesses.


----------



## welderguy (Jun 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Swing and yet another miss.
> He wasn't referring to me at all.
> 
> Things like this are good examples of why you type  before you understand what you are reading...or just type without reading based off guesses.



Doesn't matter.Insert whatever name you like.Same meaning.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 9, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Well what should I belive and why?



I'm not going to hold your hand, but you're smarter than to actually think a bookshelf of pictures (99.9% of which are "magiced" into existence) is an accurate explanation to the origin of life.



bullethead said:


> Explain to me how humans became human.
> Where did we start, how long did it take?



I'm sure you've read Genesis.



MiGGeLLo said:


> While a few photos happened to be stored in just the right conditions to be preserved in a fashion that can be meaningfully studied to ascertain their anatomical composition long removed from their youthful luster, most photos did not enjoy such a stable repose and as such are indistinguishable from the dust settled on so many ancient tomes. However those few lucky morsels, scattered about perhaps at 134,256 and 322,478 or 409,176 and the story they tell: their similarities, differences, and location  spin an old but voluminous yarn about what they were like, and how they evolved over time.
> 
> Of course we need not hang our hats on the fossil record, as magnificent as it is, to find support for evolutionary biology. But alas, I have come to learn that most who question the science behind evolution simply aren't interested in being convinced. They have their own reasons for not believing, that all too often have all too little to do with whether or not they should.



I understand the "science" behind evolutionary biology. Fortunately for me, and not-so-fortunately for evolution, I also understand mathematics and physics, as well as one can in certain areas, and so I find it difficult to take evolution seriously.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 9, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'm not going to hold your hand, but you're smarter than to actually think a bookshelf of pictures (99.9% of which are "magiced" into existence) is an accurate explanation to the origin of life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The bookshelf was a good analogy like using a family tree.

Use math and physics to explain Genesis.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 10, 2016)

bullethead said:


> The bookshelf was a good analogy like using a family tree.



No, it wasn't.



bullethead said:


> Use math and physics to explain Genesis.



There's no need to. It's explained in plain english.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 10, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:
			
		

> I understand the "science" behind evolutionary biology. Fortunately for me, and not-so-fortunately for evolution, I also understand mathematics and physics, as well as one can in certain areas, and so I find it difficult to take evolution seriously.



I'm curious as to what you mean by this, although I don't want to fall into the trap of appeal to authority, and do not have the requisite knowledge to discuss mathematics or physics in much detail, the most prominent mathematicians and physicists I know of have no qualms with evolution as the driving force behind Speciation.

What facts from mathematics or physics do you have that disprove evolution? You do know if you presented these 'facts' you would likely win a nobel prize right?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 10, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No, it wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to. It's explained in plain english.



I respect skepticism until an idea is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is something very disingenuous about the way you require evidence born out through the theoretical fringes of advanced mathematics and physics to believe something with as much evidence from other areas to accept evolution, but are willing to lay all of this skepticism aside when presented with an ancient religious text and believe all of its primitive presumptions as truth.

If I explain evolution in plain English, will you accept it also? Heck we could probably even collaborate and get it translated into Hebrew for you.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 10, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Hardly.
> Bullet has a lot of knowledge,but Israel has wisdom.
> No comparison.



It was a light hearted poke. That's all.  I was referring to the flowery use of prose. 

Your posts lately have a certain butt-hurt quality. Maybe you should pray about it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 10, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I respect skepticism until an idea is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is something very disingenuous about the way you require evidence born out through the theoretical fringes of advanced mathematics and physics to believe something with as much evidence from other areas to accept evolution, but are willing to lay all of this skepticism aside when presented with an ancient religious text and believe all of its primitive presumptions as truth.
> 
> If I explain evolution in plain English, will you accept it also? Heck we could probably even collaborate and get it translated into Hebrew for you.



I require scientific evidence for something claimed to be a scientific principle. I require anything presented to me as a scientific fact to have an enormous body of evidence spanning several disciplines, and I certainly expect some agreement with mathematics and physics; this is not asking too much. If you can't provide those things in quantities sufficient to the claim, then it's possible that the theory doesn't hold water; it certainly means it should not be treated as dogmatic fact.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 10, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm curious as to what you mean by this, although I don't want to fall into the trap of appeal to authority, and do not have the requisite knowledge to discuss mathematics or physics in much detail, the most prominent mathematicians and physicists I know of have no qualms with evolution as the driving force behind Speciation.
> 
> What facts from mathematics or physics do you have that disprove evolution? You do know if you presented these 'facts' you would likely win a nobel prize right?



Mathematical principles do not bear out the grand evolutionary claim. The sheer enormity of the numbers required are such that they're not even useful or meaningful. I could imagine one may be able create a theory of canalization through a higher dimensional abstract vector space to predict how the evolutionary process began or proceeded after beginning, but, so far as I am aware, there has been no such attempt. 

Evolutionists also completely ignore laws of physics that don't mesh with their chosen dogma. What use are the laws of thermodynamics anyway?

Mathematics is a paradigmatic example of a science and is founded and a great deal of intelligibility. Everything is clearly defined and every single principle, no matter how seemingly small, has been proven rigorously. Physics is similar though to a lesser degree. When compared, they make evolution look like nothing more than a story. I came to the conclusion that that is exactly what it is; a story, and nothing more.

At any rate, I've de-railed another thread. My apologies, ambush.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 10, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Mathematical principles do not bear out the grand evolutionary claim. The sheer enormity of the numbers required are such that they're not even useful or meaningful. I could imagine one may be able create a theory of canalization through a higher dimensional abstract vector space to predict how the evolutionary process began or proceeded after beginning, but, so far as I am aware, there has been no such attempt.



It sounds like you are talking about predicting the paths that evolution would take... whether or not we can predict it has very little to do with whether or not it is occurring. If you cannot predict my future posts word for word, does that mean I haven't posted in the past, or that most posting is an illusion? I may just not be following here.. please clarify. 

Also we do not have to determine how life could have began to describe the process through which life on earth has evolved. The proof is in the pudding on that.



EverGreen1231 said:


> Evolutionists also completely ignore laws of physics that don't mesh with their chosen dogma. What use are the laws of thermodynamics anyway?



By thermodynamics I must assume you are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).. this is not a new way of trying to poke holes in evolution, and has been thoroughly discredited.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate



EverGreen1231 said:


> Mathematics is a paradigmatic example of a science and is founded and a great deal of intelligibility. Everything is clearly defined and every single principle, no matter how seemingly small, has been proven rigorously. Physics is similar though to a lesser degree. When compared, they make evolution look like nothing more than a story. I came to the conclusion that that is exactly what it is; a story, and nothing more.



You are correct that math and physics are 'hard' sciences to a greater extent than biology, with less uncertainty and less messiness. Although you may find that quantum mechanics introduces many more uncertainties than you seem to like. However that doesn't mean that biology is any less useful for describing the world around us, or that its findings are less valid. You are free to believe whatever you will, but I must tell you your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 10, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I require scientific evidence for something claimed to be a scientific principle. I require anything presented to me as a scientific fact to have an enormous body of evidence spanning several disciplines, and I certainly expect some agreement with mathematics and physics; this is not asking too much. If you can't provide those things in quantities sufficient to the claim, then it's possible that the theory doesn't hold water; it certainly means it should not be treated as dogmatic fact.



This is laughable, you apply this skepticism to a well supported (although somehow you deny this) scientific theory, but are perfectly willing to believe in omniscient space fairies, virgin births, and divine resurrections which have no scientific backing to speak of. That's the whole point of my previous message.. you clearly do not apply the same burden of proof to your religious beliefs as you do to scientifically supported ideas.

It is my position that you are selecting which ideas you are skeptical about based on your religious beliefs rather than their scientific merit. You are unreasonable.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I require scientific evidence for something claimed to be a scientific principle. I require anything presented to me as a scientific fact to have an enormous body of evidence spanning several disciplines, and I certainly expect some agreement with mathematics and physics; this is not asking too much. If you can't provide those things in quantities sufficient to the claim, then it's possible that the theory doesn't hold water; it certainly means it should not be treated as dogmatic fact.



And in your next breath you refer us to Genesis which meets none of your own criteria.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 15, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> This is laughable, you apply this skepticism to a well supported (although somehow you deny this) scientific theory, but are perfectly willing to believe in omniscient space fairies, virgin births, and divine resurrections which have no scientific backing to speak of. That's the whole point of my previous message.. you clearly do not apply the same burden of proof to your religious beliefs as you do to scientifically supported ideas.
> 
> It is my position that you are selecting which ideas you are skeptical about based on your religious beliefs rather than their scientific merit. You are unreasonable.



If one applies only scientific merit to evolutionary theory, he will arrive a conclusion that is very far removed from the present blind acceptance.



bullethead said:


> And in your next breath you refer us to Genesis which meets none of your own criteria.



It's by faith I say God framed the universe. Science has no part in faith, though faith has a significant part in science. 

If you say "This is scientific," I say, "show me how."


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 15, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> It sounds like you are talking about predicting the paths that evolution would take... whether or not we can predict it has very little to do with whether or not it is occurring. If you cannot predict my future posts word for word, does that mean I haven't posted in the past, or that most posting is an illusion? I may just not be following here.. please clarify.



The idea of evolution is it is a path by which one singular organism gave rise to all the rest. If it is true, it would have a predictive nature and one should be able to assign probabilistic weights to said path and its variations. This predictability could be described mathematically.



MiGGeLLo said:


> Also we do not have to determine how life could have began to describe the process through which life on earth has evolved. The proof is in the pudding on that.



Sure you do. It is entirely necessary to describe how atoms and molecules arranged themselves to form something that is "living;" in fact, it'd be nice to know what they mean by "living organisms." The processes would not be different.



MiGGeLLo said:


> By thermodynamics I must assume you are talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).. this is not a new way of trying to poke holes in evolution, and has been thoroughly discredited.
> 
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate



Not hardly. The principle of the 2nd law is that order decreases because systems, open or otherwise, do not naturally move to less probable states. If they do move to a state of greater "order," they do so in a way that is predictable by causes that are real and measurable; still lending itself to the idea that improbable things don't occur.

Saying that "because the sun gives the earth energy, the earth is not a closed system" is obviously true; no system is closed. But it is another thing entirely to say that because the sun gives the earth energy, and the earth isn't a closed system, order can increase in this local area without violating the 2nd law. How did the order increase? Natural selection. What's that? Um... natural selection. How does it affect organisms, precisely? It selects them, naturally. Ah, I understand now.

If I take books to the moon the "order" on the moon has increased, but I have to use a rocket to get there. It's absurd to say, "because the sun shines on the moon, the books appearing naturally is not puzzling at all nor does it violate any natural laws."



MiGGeLLo said:


> You are correct that math and physics are 'hard' sciences to a greater extent than biology, with less uncertainty and less messiness. Although you may find that quantum mechanics introduces many more uncertainties than you seem to like. However that doesn't mean that biology is any less useful for describing the world around us, or that its findings are less valid. You are free to believe whatever you will, but I must tell you your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand.



Of course it means their findings are less valid. Science is spoken and interpreted in the language of mathematics. If something cannot be described in mathematics, it is not scientific until that changes.

As far as being embedded in sand; given many posts here, made by you and others, there's a complete lack of ability to even understand what the sand is, much less if someone is buried in it.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 15, 2016)

^Bam.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 15, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> , and the earth isn't a closed system,



Yea. Basically it is.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> If one applies only scientific merit to evolutionary theory, he will arrive a conclusion that is very far removed from the present blind acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By faith I say evolution has framed life on earth.

Regarding your framer of the universe, what are the mathematical odds that an asteroid or black hole or the sun ceasing to exist wipes humanity out in the future?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 15, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The idea of evolution is it is a path by which one singular organism gave rise to all the rest. If it is true, it would have a predictive nature and one should be able to assign probabilistic weights to said path and its variations. This predictability could be described mathematically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The earth resides in a closed system which is the universe.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 16, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The idea of evolution is it is a path by which one singular organism gave rise to all the rest. If it is true, it would have a predictive nature and one should be able to assign probabilistic weights to said path and its variations. This predictability could be described mathematically.



I don't know for certain that all life originated from the same organism. For all I know there may have been multiple original sources dropped off by a passing comet. In evolution one singular _species_ can give rise to others over many generations. This is probably what you meant, just making sure we are clear that this is not a single organism turning into something else in its lifetime. We are talking about biological evolution, not pokemon evolution .

On your other point, while with a sufficient model for what will lead to greater reproductive success in the current world we could certainly attempt to assign probabilities for what mutations will result in a more fit individual, we simply do not have an adequate model for this that I'm aware of. We can (and do) observe evolution without being able to predict what paths it will take in the future.



EverGreen1231 said:


> Sure you do. It is entirely necessary to describe how atoms and molecules arranged themselves to form something that is "living;" in fact, it'd be nice to know what they mean by "living organisms." The processes would not be different.



I'll state first that discovering how life started is not necessary to understanding how life has progressed since then as I stated before, but I'll indulge you for a moment here:

We have not discovered how life could have first risen yet. However when/if we do discover it, I promise there will be much gnashing of teeth from young earth creationists, and you will be able to attack it from inane and thoroughly unscientific positions then as well as you can evolution now, and to folks who do not know better it may even sound like you have a sensible position.




EverGreen1231 said:


> Not hardly. The principle of the 2nd law is that order decreases because systems, open or otherwise, do not naturally move to less probable states. If they do move to a state of greater "order," they do so in a way that is predictable by causes that are real and measurable; still lending itself to the idea that improbable things don't occur.



Nope.. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is specifically for closed systems, not 'open or otherwise' as you erroneously state. Also while I agree that life as we see on earth seems to be extraordinarily improbable, your insinuation seems to be that because life is improbable it violates the laws of nature. I propose that this is because you have an overly simplistic (and incorrect) idea of the laws of nature, and are misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics to match your beliefs.



EverGreen1231 said:


> Saying that "because the sun gives the earth energy, the earth is not a closed system" is obviously true; no system is closed. But it is another thing entirely to say that because the sun gives the earth energy, and the earth isn't a closed system, order can increase in this local area without violating the 2nd law.



Yep.. thats pretty much what I'm saying. We are more ordered than a random assortment of the elements we are composed of, and yet here we are. If your stipulation is that order cannot increase, there is no reason we should be here. Perhaps you think this is because God can violate the laws of nature, but I think it is more likely you misunderstand the laws of nature.



EverGreen1231 said:


> How did the order increase? Natural selection. What's that? Um... natural selection. How does it affect organisms, precisely? It selects them, naturally. Ah, I understand now.



The fact that you clearly don't have a grasp on what natural selection is is not my problem. You should go read up on it.



EverGreen1231 said:


> If I take books to the moon the "order" on the moon has increased, but I have to use a rocket to get there. It's absurd to say, "because the sun shines on the moon, the books appearing naturally is not puzzling at all nor does it violate any natural laws."



Come again? The book being on the moon does not violate any natural laws. Otherwise the book would not be there. We know exactly how it got there. Here you are misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Did you read the link I posted? 



EverGreen1231 said:


> Of course it means their findings are less valid. Science is spoken and interpreted in the language of mathematics. If something cannot be described in mathematics, it is not scientific until that changes.



I want a mathematical proof for the 3rd hair back from your wrist on your left arm. Go! My point is while math is important for describing the universe, and to some degree we can describe the universe using math, but other sciences are still necessary if we want to do useful things through scientific inquiry.



EverGreen1231 said:


> As far as being embedded in sand; given many posts here, made by you and others, there's a complete lack of ability to even understand what the sand is, much less if someone is buried in it.



Would you like to have a discussion on what sand is? I doubt my knowledge on it is on par with a geologist or someone similarly trained in it, but I'll be happy to borrow from their knowledge and give it a shot? We probably should do it in a separate thread though, we're getting seriously off topic at this point


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2016)

Evergreen,

Did you watch any of the programs?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 19, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I don't know for certain that all life originated from the same organism. For all I know there may have been multiple original sources dropped off by a passing comet. In evolution one singular _species_ can give rise to others over many generations. This is probably what you meant, just making sure we are clear that this is not a single organism turning into something else in its lifetime. We are talking about biological evolution, not pokemon evolution .
> 
> On your other point, while with a sufficient model for what will lead to greater reproductive success in the current world we could certainly attempt to assign probabilities for what mutations will result in a more fit individual, we simply do not have an adequate model for this that I'm aware of. We can (and do) observe evolution without being able to predict what paths it will take in the future.
> 
> ...



My "simplistic" explanations are for your sake.  I suppose they're not simple enough.

You brought up the sand, I only used it to give a very accurate illustration, as is made apparent by your above statements.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 19, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Evergreen,
> 
> Did you watch any of the programs?



No, I prefer reading books over watching science shows. There's much more detail in the books than the shows.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 19, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No, I prefer reading books over watching science shows. There's much more detail in the books than the shows.




That's funny....

psst. you can do both.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 19, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No, I prefer reading books over watching science shows. There's much more detail in the books than the shows.



I didn't know they had books in Woodbury.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 20, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> My "simplistic" explanations are for your sake.  I suppose they're not simple enough.
> 
> You brought up the sand, I only used it to give a very accurate illustration, as is made apparent by your above statements.



My issue with your explanations isn't that they aren't simple enough, rather it is that they have too little regard for reality, and readily indulge in ancient goatherds' fantasies such as the biblical creation story while discounting well supported scientific principles by using already thoroughly debunked lines of attack against them.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 21, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> I didn't know they had books in Woodbury.



We don't even have our own sunshine in woodbury. We have to import both of them.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 21, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> That's funny....
> 
> psst. you can do both.



You could, but you shouldn't; at least, you shouldn't give the tv shows more than a passing "that's interesting." "Scientific" tv programs do gross disservice to the enterprise's intelligibility, dissonant as it may be in some cases.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 21, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> My issue with your explanations isn't that they aren't simple enough, rather it is that they have too little regard for reality, and readily indulge in ancient goatherds' fantasies such as the biblical creation story while discounting well supported scientific principles by using already thoroughly debunked lines of attack against them.



Oh, but I know what will be said...
"Your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand."
"What's the sand?"
"I dunno. FORWARD!"
"Why are you walking backward?"
There's no answer.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> You could, but you shouldn't; at least, you shouldn't give the tv shows more than a passing "that's interesting." "Scientific" tv programs do gross disservice to the enterprise's intelligibility, dissonant as it may be in some cases.



Ridiculous.  A TV program, particularly like the ones that I linked, give way more scientific information than a science article in the New Yorker.   Don't read magazines either?  How about scientific journals?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 21, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Ridiculous.  A TV program, particularly like the ones that I linked, give way more scientific information than a science article in the New Yorker.   Don't read magazines either?  How about scientific journals?



You even bother to read a science article written by the New Yorker? 

I don't have much use for TV programs, and if you do, that's fine; but let's not pretend like you can learn anything from those shows that will enable you to seriously discuss scientific principles. They're puff pieces that allow laymen to feel smart during a conversation at the supper table.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> You even bother to read a science article written by the New Yorker?



Often.



EverGreen1231 said:


> I don't have much use for TV programs, and if you do, that's fine; but let's not pretend like you can learn anything from those shows that will enable you to seriously discuss scientific principles. They're puff pieces that allow laymen to feel smart during a conversation at the supper table.




I agree that most people don't know much about science.  The information in those programs will exceed most layperson's understanding of the subjects.  I don't have to pretend that one could learn something from those shows.  Why don't you watch one and then critique it honestly instead of bloviating.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> We don't even have our own sunshine in woodbury. We have to import both of them.



Just pulling your leg of course. I like Woodbury. Grew up just across the river in Molena.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Jun 21, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Oh, but I know what will be said...
> "Your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand."
> "What's the sand?"
> "I dunno. FORWARD!"
> ...



As I said before, if you want to talk about what sand is we should start a thread for it .

Come back when you have to offer other than unsubstantiated bull-hockey, deflection, and pseudo 'wisdom'.

Evergreen has the best books, everybody says so, the best.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 22, 2016)

MiGGeLLo said:


> As I said before, if you want to talk about what sand is we should start a thread for it .
> 
> Come back when you have to offer other than unsubstantiated bull-hockey, deflection, and pseudo 'wisdom'.
> 
> Evergreen has the best books, everybody says so, the best.



Evergreen does have the best book.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 22, 2016)

drippin' rock said:


> Just pulling your leg of course. I like Woodbury. Grew up just across the river in Molena.



 I'll take Woodbury or Gay over Atlanta every day of the week and twice on Sunday.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I'll take Woodbury or Gay over Atlanta every day of the week and twice on Sunday.



We have been looking at homes down that way. 
I may no longer be able to go straight through Gay.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 23, 2016)

660griz said:


> We have been looking at homes down that way.
> I may no longer be able to go straight through Gay.



I see what you did there.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Jun 23, 2016)

660griz said:


> We have been looking at homes down that way.
> I may no longer be able to go straight through Gay.



There used to be a church in Gay called "Gay Baptist Church." They've since changed the name. I can't figure out why.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2016)

EverGreen1231 said:


> There used to be a church in Gay called "Gay Baptist Church." They've since changed the name. I can't figure out why.



They probably felt they had to abandon that name because because it has been co-opted by a certain group with whom they fear they could be associated if they persisted in its use. Or "approving". Gay is not just the name of a town, now, some use it to describe their appetites.
Glad to be a help.


----------

