-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
G
Hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.
A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.
Scientific theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory can be considered a deductive theory, in that its content could be expressed in some formal system of logic in which its elementary rules are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.
Evolution can only be considered a theory from an Humanities point of view.
To be a Scientific theory it needs to be testable by experiment.
The Evolutionary Hypothesis DOES NOT conform to the observable data nor at least one established Scientific Law.
There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.
In thermodynamics, a reversible process, or reversible cycle if the process is cyclic, is a process that can be "reversed" by means of infinitesimal changes in some property of the system without loss or dissipation of energy.[1] Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process. So that the process can be defined by a mathematical function. Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. However, if the system undergoing the changes responds much faster than the applied change, the deviation from reversibility may be negligible. In a reversible cycle, the system and its surroundings will be exactly the same after each cycle.[2]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι - hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory – although the difference is sometimes more one of degree than of principle.
A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis.
Scientific theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory can be considered a deductive theory, in that its content could be expressed in some formal system of logic in which its elementary rules are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.
Evolution can only be considered a theory from an Humanities point of view.
To be a Scientific theory it needs to be testable by experiment.
The Evolutionary Hypothesis DOES NOT conform to the observable data nor at least one established Scientific Law.
There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.
In thermodynamics, a reversible process, or reversible cycle if the process is cyclic, is a process that can be "reversed" by means of infinitesimal changes in some property of the system without loss or dissipation of energy.[1] Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process. So that the process can be defined by a mathematical function. Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. However, if the system undergoing the changes responds much faster than the applied change, the deviation from reversibility may be negligible. In a reversible cycle, the system and its surroundings will be exactly the same after each cycle.[2]
Cup, I don't mean to be rude, but you are very ignorant of the topic that we are speaking of. I will answer all of your statements, if you really want, but I feel it will be a waste of time since you arguments against mine were basically saying "Nuh uh, you're wrong! I have nothing to back me up on this, but you're totally wrong!"
You're still missing the point. The energy which comes from the sun and which we acquire from food allows our cells to do the work necessary to acquire more order. God has imposed intelligence on our biosphere in the form of DNA, the basic genetic material. It's thanks to DNA and the changes that our environments enact on it that organisms are able to change and grow more adapted.
Last time I checked, lying was a sin.
Last time I checked, lying was a sin.
C
A good way to think logically about this would be to imagine a pile of bricks on the back of a tip truck, if the driver drops the load of bricks off the end of the truck, the mostly likely outcome for the bricks is that they will fall radomly in a disorderly pile, it is highly unlikely that they will fall into an orderly stack or even a wall or a house, which require order and design, the most likely outcome is disorder rather than order, or it could be stated, 'order tends towards disorder', the pile of bricks left alone will not produce frther complexity or energy or order or design but will left alone simple tend toward more entropy, more disorder until finailly they will disintergrate to the stage where they can no longer be classified as a pile of bricks, but eventually a pile of dust to be scattered to the four winds. A random jumble will not organize itself.
Last edited:
C
Life can be described as organization . From prokaryotic cells, tissues, organs, plants to animals, families communities, ecosystems, planets, wherever we desribe life it can be described as organized. For evolutionary Darwinism to be of account it must be in violation of increasing entropy and this must happen continually, prepertually forever in complete denial and contradiction of natural, logical laws of nature.
Most Evo's just ignore this staggering fact, there only refuge is denial or to seek refuge in some confusion between there being two types entropy, for example; 'closed' or 'open', however logic declares that the larger system is also subject to the same law, whether open or closed the law remains the same, if you consider the larger system in our case as I previously defined - solar system - we find both Earth and Sun subject to the same law, thermodynamic entropy of the sun increases over time, which amounts to less energy, less order, less complexity, less diversity.
Most Evo's just ignore this staggering fact, there only refuge is denial or to seek refuge in some confusion between there being two types entropy, for example; 'closed' or 'open', however logic declares that the larger system is also subject to the same law, whether open or closed the law remains the same, if you consider the larger system in our case as I previously defined - solar system - we find both Earth and Sun subject to the same law, thermodynamic entropy of the sun increases over time, which amounts to less energy, less order, less complexity, less diversity.
C
Here's the First Law of Thermodynamics;
"The first law of Thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one systam to another in many forms. Also, it cannot be created or destroyed, but remains constant, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant."
"The first law of Thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one systam to another in many forms. Also, it cannot be created or destroyed, but remains constant, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant."
I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't know about the "matter can not be created nor destroyed" law.
As for the sun question, I think I know where this is headed.
I worded myself very poorly last time because I was getting tired of typing, and I'm going to word myself a bit poorly this time because I'm juggling a million conversation at once (because of msn and facebook).
The earth is not a closed system. - get our energy from the sun, yo
Life is not a closed system
The universe is a closed system.
Do you know where I'm headed with this, dawg?
As for the sun question, I think I know where this is headed.
I worded myself very poorly last time because I was getting tired of typing, and I'm going to word myself a bit poorly this time because I'm juggling a million conversation at once (because of msn and facebook).
The earth is not a closed system. - get our energy from the sun, yo
Life is not a closed system
The universe is a closed system.
Do you know where I'm headed with this, dawg?
G
Mia, I will give you infinite energy and infinite time. You still will not get an increase in complexity without an intelligence imposing order from outside. This gives you theistic evolution.
The truth is we have limited evolution and very limited time. Therefore even Theistic evolution is untenable.
Any observed mutations have been negative not positive.
The concept of a huge sequence of positive mutations is out of the question
AND EVEN IF IT WEREN'T
Only life produces life.
The truth is we have limited evolution and very limited time. Therefore even Theistic evolution is untenable.
Any observed mutations have been negative not positive.
The concept of a huge sequence of positive mutations is out of the question
AND EVEN IF IT WEREN'T
Only life produces life.
C
OK, this will do, eventually we just get to the largest system, which is closed of course, so apply the SLOT, we have the earth located in a closed system recieving heat from a sun located in a closed system, regardless the law remains the same, so the conclusion is that entropy increases over time within the Universe which you admit is closed, which is true, so 'Evolutionary Theory' is in stark contradiction to the SLOT and is a violation of the natural law, this is also in contradiction to the Biblical account which agrees with the SLOT, which is what I have stated, which is true.
C
Yes, all this is true, mutations are just destruction of genetic material, the end result is, over time, negative, except in Hollywood where mutants are beneficial and improved, however in the real world, mutants represent a loss of genetic material which adversely efffects their ability, hinders their fitness to life in general, a mutation is destruction of order, there is no getting around this statement to prove otherwise.
We've been over this before, Cup. Not all mutations are destructive. Most of them have no visible effect whatsoever. Harmful mutations die out of the gene pool. Those few that are helpful stay in and cause changes in the overall genetic make-up of the species.
Very gradually.
'Theistic' and 'untenable' are for all intents and purposes mutually contradictory. If God is involved, then it can't be untenable because He's freaking God. He can do anything He wants.
Very gradually.
'Theistic' and 'untenable' are for all intents and purposes mutually contradictory. If God is involved, then it can't be untenable because He's freaking God. He can do anything He wants.
G
Brackenzee, there has NOT been enough time. The Earth is provably less than 10,000 years old.
God could have chosen to use evolution but he did not.
He also foresaw the controversy.
That is why the Bible mentions 'after their kind'.
also it says 'evening and morning were one day'
No mutations, not enough time.
God could have chosen to use evolution but he did not.
He also foresaw the controversy.
That is why the Bible mentions 'after their kind'.
also it says 'evening and morning were one day'
No mutations, not enough time.
- Status