Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Quote:

Using a different calculation

...that I can't get any SANE ASTRONOMER to agree with

parados,

I've said that I don't know how old the earth is. I think the jury's still out on that.

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions. Wonder why I'm skeptical?

So you ONLY want to talk about how old the earth is, eh? (Can't blame you, based on your poor performance talking about the origin of life.)

from the link I posted:

Quote:

So , we'll take this one step at a time for you.

Do you agree that the rotation of the earth is slowing down?

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions. Wonder why I'm skeptical?

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions.

By the way, William Thomson, aka "Lord Kelvin," took Thomas Edison's line, and condemned alternating current and Tesla's bi-phase, asynchronous generator, which Tesla and Westinghouse were to build at Niagara Falls.

Yeah . . . there's a reliable source.

The best part I have seen about Kelvin's calculations is he figured the heat of the sun was caused by meteors hitting it.

Hey real life.. if the temperature of the sun is caused by meteors hitting it how do you get objects hitting the earth being several miles high? We all know the temperature on the sun melts meteors.

But of course Kelvin was a great proponent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and his calculations INCLUDED the energy transfer from the sun. Umm.. real life? Doesn't that mean that Kelvin applied the 2nd law of thermodynamics incorrectly?

parados wrote:

But of course Kelvin was a great proponent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and his calculations INCLUDED the energy transfer from the sun. Umm.. real life? Doesn't that mean that Kelvin applied the 2nd law of thermodynamics incorrectly?

More distortions from you, eh parados?

If he applied the 2nd Law to the 'open system' of the Earth, he was correct.

The position that I have consistently criticized is those who claim that the 2nd Law ONLY applies to 'closed systems', and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring 'closed system'.

Do you misquote me on purpose, or do you just have difficulty remembering what I said?

Try using the 'Search' function if you unsure.

Better yet, just use the 'Search' function always. History shows you are usually incorrect quoting me.

No cyclic process is possible whose result is the flow of heat from a single heat reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work on a work reservoir. Energy interchanges can take place in any direction between any pair of work reservoirs, but energy exchange between a work reservoir and a single heat reservoir, with no outstanding changes in other systems, can proceed in one direction only -- that in which the work reservoir does work and the heat reservoir absorbs heat.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

But of course Kelvin was a great proponent of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and his calculations INCLUDED the energy transfer from the sun. Umm.. real life? Doesn't that mean that Kelvin applied the 2nd law of thermodynamics incorrectly?

More distortions from you, eh parados?

If he applied the 2nd Law to the 'open system' of the Earth, he was correct.

The position that I have consistently criticized is those who claim that the 2nd Law ONLY applies to 'closed systems', and then cannot name even ONE naturally occurring 'closed system'.

Do you misquote me on purpose, or do you just have difficulty remembering what I said?

Can you show me where I quoted you in that statement? I don't see it anywhere. I asked you if that means Kelvin applied it incorrectly. Does it mean that or not?

Quote:

Try using the 'Search' function if you unsure.

Better yet, just use the 'Search' function always. History shows you are usually incorrect quoting me.

Perhaps YOU should use the search function. You would find that math that proves evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The same math you have not been able to dispute.

Based on Kelvin's statements he would have applied it as the earth being a system getting energy from another system which would be the sun.

Is that a correct usage or not?

parados wrote:

Perhaps YOU should use the search function. You would find that math that proves evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The same math you have not been able to dispute.

I've never disputed the math.

I've objected to the way the law is selectively applied by many evolutionists.

More distortions from you.

parados wrote:

Based on Kelvin's statements he would have applied it as the earth being a system getting energy from another system which would be the sun.

Is that a correct usage or not?

Go back and read what I wrote.

Do you understand what I wrote?

Why must I repeat it if you do?

Why should I repeat it if you don't?

real life wrote:

I tend to favor thousands rather than billions of years because the dating schemes used to come up with billions of years are notoriously contradictory and based on unproven and usually unprovable assumptions.

Actually they are not contradictory not unproven and not unprovable. You just enjoy saying that.

(also your definition of 'proof' is not the scientific definition of proof)

When several dating schemes produce 'dates' that differ by tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of years, do you consider that accurate?

Or are you satisfied that the definition of 'within the limits of accuracy' is stretched to accomodate anything and everything that one desires to acommodate?