Faith-Based Campaign to Give Final Push on Health Reform

scientist3 »

Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

To viking,

I like your last sentence but your 1st few aren't completely correct. The Post Office was partially privatized. They still get gov't funds to cover their deficits. Its still against the law to compete against them.
Education is run mostly by states. The local boards can only make some decisions. There are also many federal regulations that local boards must comply with. Since vouchers/tuition tax credits aren't allowed, the public schools are a virtual monopoly.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

To viking,

Here are some websites that talk about the 2nd Law & evolution:

www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html (easy understanding)

These other 3 sites are a little more technical:
www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/thomson.asp
www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

To viking,

Wow! I'm not sure where you are getting your 2nd Law explanations from but I'd like to reply to them. I do have some experience in this as my degree is in physics.
1) re-read your 11:07 9/2 post. You say that Earth is not an isolated system as it receives energy from outside it. But it is in an isolated system (the Earth/Sun), so there is no flaw in what DP & I said. Most people who use the 'Earth is not in an isolated system' defense, use it to say that the 2nd Law doesn't apply. This is what I was responding to.
2)biological processes DO NOT reduce entropy (increase order). All chemical & biological (CB) processes increase entropy (decrease available energy). Unless a CB is 100% energy convertible (an only matter to antimatter is), entropy increases for every CB reaction.
The 'localised decrease in entropy' is a made up reason to support evolution. That's why the 2nd Law is called a Law. It is inviolable! CB reactions are even much less efficient than nuclear reactions (which are only about 2% efficient).
3) when did our species live without food like agriculture & husbandry? You have to assume that evolution took place to support this statement. This is circular reasoning. Human beings cannot and never have lived without food.
4) yes, Darwinian evolution (both past & modern)does make the claim of increasing complexity. Starting out with simple celled organisms & increasing complexity to DNA is a HUGH increase of unbelievable (& I claim, of impossible)proportions. And not just once, but trillions & trillions of times. And all of these are violations of the 2nd Law.
5) when you say that these trillions & trillions of times are offset by other localised entropies making up for it, who or what is directing this to be done? The system doesn't just make up its mind to 'adjust' this. You have also just made the 2nd Law defacto non-existent.
6) your example of our aging makes no sense and no physicist I know of would agree with these trillions & trillions of 2nd Law variances. We age because of the 2nd Law.7)
You are right that these discussions are very thought provoking. As for me, my wife & I are going to spend the weekend on the other side of the state. My old college friends daughter is getting married. They met on eHarmony. It'll be a great time to celebrate God's blessings on their family and their daughter's new life with her chosen one. All that's a long way of saying I won't be back on CP for a few days. I hope your weekend is blessed.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:15 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

To viking,

Your interpretation of the 2nd Law is an old one & incorrect. The isolated system is the Earth-Sun (our Solar System) in terms of the energy infusion from the Sun.
We receive almost no direct energy from anywhere else.

Also, just receiving energy from the Sun doesn't explain it. There must be a mechanism to convert that energy to usable energy. My example of the building materials left on a site expecting a finished office building in a billion years is a good example of this. Humans cannot today exist with just sunlight. Our daily existence is the outgrowth of our intelligence to plant the right kind of foods, etc. Its not something that just happens.

Thank you for looking at the resources that I listed. Please continue to look at all of them. As I've said in the past, I don't have to agree with everything someone says to generally support them. I do find it interesting that somehow people never apply this to evolutionists.
I believe you are a believer...I don't have a problem with that and have appreciated many of your posts in the past & am sure that I will in the future.
Blessings on your day!

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Here are some great frequently asked questions about intelligent design. They deal with testable hypotheses, is ID science?, what is a 'theory'?, etc. And your hearing from the mouth of an ID'er, not a Darwinian evolutionist talking about what they think ID is.

www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php
www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
www.arn.org/id_faq.htm
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TeachingResources.htm
www.uncommondescent.com/faq/
www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Ten_Questions_ID.pdf

There I've done all the work for you. Now no one should make the same mistakes about ID that have been made here many times.

To viking...
No, dp is right about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. All systems lead toward disorder. Darwinian evolution says that evolution tends toward higher systems of order, i.e.specified complexity. This violates the 2nd Law. Birth & growth of humans doesn't violate the 2nd Law as a baby's DNA is created from his parents DNA. Its not an increase in complexity. The baby grows as its DNA works out its own instructions. But, even then, over time, the 2nd Law takes over and the person deteriorates & dies. He is only kept alive by infusions of tremendous amounts of energy, but as I've said, the 2nd Law still works on him/her and they die.

The NIV Announcement - A Statement

scientist3 »

Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Mohler is correct. We'll have to wait & see & pray. I can say that is it is not translated correctly, especially with no 'gender inclusive' language, it will be the last NIV that I will ever buy.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:02 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

To klm68,

A good scientific theory first & foremost is OBSERVABLE, testable & REPEATABLE. Its also what you said but not only what you said. You ARE NOT getting your definitions of Creationism or ID from the people who believe in them. Your definitions are the same old- same old from evo's. Go to www.discovery.org & www.answersingenesis.org to find out what the real definitions & methodologies are. The people who believe in them are SCIENTISTS.

Vt. Gay Couples Marry, Eat 'Hubby Hubby' Ice Cream

scientist3 »

Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:56 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show Totally off the subject but a fascist is not a right-winger. Fascism in Germany was named the National Socialism Party. Fascism is state control of private enterprise, not ownership. The war between fascism & communism was a 'family squabble', two competing brands of socialism. Read Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism". hide

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:29 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

To BobTX,

I agree that a person can be a Christian & an evolutionist. I've said that here before. I also agree that there are many things more important than this debate, although I think it is important. I also agree that we should be able to discuss things civilly. My discussions with klm68 & steveh20 are very civil and I appreciate that.
I come at this from the other end. I believe that Creationism & Intelligent Design are scientific theories. What frosts me more than anything is that most evo's don't even want to talk about it, call me/us ANTI-SCIENCE (how arrogant is that?),flat-earthers (how insulting) and myriad other names and won't even admit any scientific points that I bring up that might challenge evolution. This is NOT a scientific attitude. I think that there are many points that C-ID'ers bring up that are valid but, no, the evo's won't give an inch. Maybe this is why there are so many scientists who express skepticism about evolution. The list of 3,000 scientists that I referred to before was drawn up very quickly and does not represent all the scientists who are skeptical about it. This is why its very hard to keep a conversation civil.
But I have read some of your posts in the past (its been awhile) and I've enjoyed them. Glad to see you back here.

Nation Bids Final Farewell to Edward Kennedy

scientist3 »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:48 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

While I disagreed with many of his policies, I will pray for his family members as I'm sure they're hurting with his lose and that of his sister just recently.

Salvationists to Mark September with Prayers for Peace, Trafficking Victims

scientist3 »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

What a great group. This is a much bigger problem than most people recognize. And there is a movement to legalize prostitution here in the USA. What a mistake that will be.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

I'll make this my last entry. My previous example was to show how improbable mutation & natural selection are for constructing anything remotely complex. Mutations are almost always 'bad', they make something less efficient, not more efficient. They NEVER result in a gain in DNA information but mostly in a loss of it or in a very few cases, in an even exchange.
Natural selection is not a directed process. It is a blind process with no aim in view.
For more detailed discussions on mutations & natural selection than we can go into here, go to the following websites:
www.answersingenesis.org,
www.trueorigin.org
Type in either name and you'll get a lot of information that would be too detailed to list here.
Allow me to quote the following:
1) "Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem...even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself IF immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10(450) (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10(600) (Frank Dalisbury in American Biology Teacher)." One chance in 10(53) is defined as impossible.
2) "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability....a practical person must conclude that life doesn't happen by chance" Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge Press, 1992).

One more blast....evolution should have produced millions of transitional forms. We should have no trouble finding them at all, but we DO have trouble finding them. The very few that are out there are fiercely debated by evolutionists themselves.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

To klm68,

I think we'll just have to 'agree to disagree'. I think evolution has been proven to be a theory in support of transitional links in addition to many other problems. The 'time will produce results' argument of evolution is not true. If I leave all the building materials on a site & come back in a few million years, I'll expect a fully functioning office building with air conditioning & muzak. Our bodies are a lot more complicated than an office building.
ID is definitely a scientific theory & it does produce testable hypotheses, irreducible complexity & complex specified biological information to name two.. Please read more of it from an ID author.
I'm glad to hear your view about people like Dawkins. They don't really want to debate but to indoctrinate.
Its been a good conversation & I do appreciate your civil responses.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:33 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 4

To steveh20,

"Once again I am surprised that having taken nuclear physics you seem to have no knowledge of these things"
If you mean the +/- factor, I know that. I wasn't talking about the +/- range. What I was talking about was the initial parent/daughter ratio versus the ratio when we test it, to determine the age of it. The assumption that the initial ratio is 100%-0% is not always right. And there are many things that can significantly effect decay rates (& I don't mean the +/- range) and these things are not often taken into account. How can they be as we weren't there to observe the process?
Some years ago, scientists tested new rocks that formed from a volcano in Mexico & determined that they were 3,000 years old. The rocks were formed about 100 years ago. While I can't remember anything about the news release (except the result), the scientists got egg on their face because of it.

Something's Got To Give

scientist3 »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Totally privatizing Social Security means to make my contributions mandatory but into my own retirement account for me only. If I had personally invested all my 'Social Security investments' that I've made in my life, I'd be retired by now & a multi-millionaire. Gov't Social Security is such a rip-off in that it provides so little return on investment.

Privatizing Medicare would work the same way. If we had to invest so much money every year into our own private health account plus buying a high deductible health insurance policy, we'd be way better off. This is what Health Savings Accounts do. I switched our small company over to these instead of HMO's. The amount of money that I have paid, in taxes, over the years for Medicare is astonishingly high and Medicare is still going to break the American Economy. But, because of state & federal restrictions, I can only only buy a policy from a Michigan company. What if they wiped out those restrictions and I could buy one from any insurance company? What if I could join a group that purchased these policies in great number? These things would all lower the cost tremendously. I have emailed my reps & Senators in Congress & told them these things, but because Democrats don't support these "free market" reforms, they've NEVER been voted on & approved.

With the money that the gov't would save, they could more than provide for the disabled. But remember that some of the disabled would be provided for already because of these changes.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:04 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

To klm68,

This is 'theory' in the broadest sense. Of course Behe is correct on astrology being a theory. Anything can be a theory but 99% of things WILL BE DISPROVEN! The flat earth belief is a theory but it can be disproven very quickly.
If you think Behe was saying that astrology was on a par with ID as a theory, you're crazy. This exchange was nothing more than a lawyerly double-speak (this is one reason why many of us have an extreme distaste for lawyers, they don't want to get at the truth, they just want to win their case). Kind of like asking "Are you still beating you wife? and answer with a yes or no."

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

scientist3 »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:54 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

When I took Nuclear Physics in college, I asked my teacher about the parent/daughter ratio in regards to determining the age of something. He said that it had to be 100% to 0%, otherwise the age would be off. He also said that there were some things that did effect an elements half-life. Put both of these things together and you shouldn't get the error-proof dating data that evolutionists claim. Maybe they should take a Nuclear Physics class?

What Does the 'Real Church' Look Like?

scientist3 »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:42 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

I have read several of Dr. Crabb's book and find him to be very insightful. However on this topic, I disagree with him. If he's not finding a church that meets his spiritual needs, then he needs to keep searching. Or he needs to re-examine what his needs are. God doesn't set us in a place without providing for our needs & part of that provision is a public meeting with other believers. There are some things that a good church provides for us that we can't get anywhere else. Things like:
1)corporate worship
2)good biblical teaching
3)a place to exercise our spiritual gifts (not just the charismatic kind).
4) a place that provides for intimate sharing of our lives &/or accountability thru something like a small group, i.e. support & encouragement as we travel thru life with the Lord.
5) a place that provide ministry opportunities to the unsaved, the poor, etc.

Something's Got To Give

scientist3 »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"Government "entitlements" come at a high price. You don't get something for nothing. More entitlements mean higher taxes, bigger government, and less freedom."
Amen! When did America become a Nanny state? We need to privatize Social Security & Medicare.

Health Care and Religious Freedom

scientist3 »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Gee, I wonder why the ACLU isn't defending this college? Didn't we have a CP thread a while back where someone said that the ACLU defended a lot of Christian causes?