Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread for Bob and Johnny's One on One

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Bob, John

    Bob, John,

    You have spent a lot of time discussing whether Styer was clear enough in explaining his topic. A literary discussion, perhaps interesting to some, but I suspect that giving his essay a grade on clarity isn't what interests most people here.

    Aren't there more substantive issues here?

    Thanks

    Chair

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by chair View Post
      Stripe,

      If you can clearly state what "the challenge" is, I will meet it. As it stands, it is vague, and I can only guess at what you mean.

      You spell entropy very nicely, but it is not at all clear what you mean when you use the term. The term has a defined meaning in thermodynamics, and a defined meaning in information theory. What do you mean when you use the term?
      Entropy

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      In many branches of science, entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. The concept of entropy is particularly notable as it is applied across physics, information theory and mathematics.
      The word "entropy" is derived from the Greek εντροπία "a turning towards" (εν- "in" + τροπή "a turning").

      Originally posted by chair View Post
      Bob, John,

      You have spent a lot of time discussing whether Styer was clear enough in explaining his topic. A literary discussion, perhaps interesting to some, but I suspect that giving his essay a grade on clarity isn't what interests most people here.

      Aren't there more substantive issues here?

      Thanks

      Chair
      The substantive issue is that the majority on both sides have misunderstood what the challenge to evolution from entropy is. Quit confusing matters.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #78
        Chair asked:
        Originally posted by chair View Post
        Stripe,
        If you can clearly state what "the challenge" is, I will meet it. As it stands, it is vague, and I can only guess at what you mean.

        You spell entropy very nicely, but it is not at all clear what you mean when you use the term. The term has a defined meaning in thermodynamics, and a defined meaning in information theory. What do you mean when you use the term?
        Stripe responded:
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Entropy

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        In many branches of science, entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. The concept of entropy is particularly notable as it is applied across physics, information theory and mathematics.
        The word "entropy" is derived from the Greek εντροπία "a turning towards" (εν- "in" + τροπή "a turning").

        The substantive issue is that the majority on both sides have misunderstood what the challenge to evolution from entropy is. Quit confusing matters.
        Chair, it is abundantly clear that your challenge is to root out every misinformed secular scientist, and every secular scientist who is not hyper-explicitly clear on what type of entropy is being discussed, every creationist without exception (except for maybe one), and re-educate the lot of them.

        Or, alternatively, you can note the common use of the term across the disparate fields listed in the wiki article, and undertake to show that it has a causal connection across all of them. Show that a change in information entropy forces a change in thermo. Disregard that the wiki article makes no reference that there is a functional dependency between the various applications of the term. This rewriting the laws of science is for Stripe, who seems to be adverse to admitting that entropy is dealing with separate concepts as it is applied in different fields. Good luck.

        Comment


        • #79
          Entropy deals with separate concepts as it is applied in different fields.

          The challenge to evolution is that there is no known means by which sunlight, or any energy, can be turned into information without intelligent guidance.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Entropy deals with separate concepts as it is applied in different fields.

            The challenge to evolution is that there is no known means by which sunlight, or any energy, can be turned into information without intelligent guidance.
            Outside what the Styer paper addresses.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Stripe View Post

              The challenge to evolution is that there is no known means by which sunlight, or any energy, can be turned into information without intelligent guidance.
              Replication

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Entropy deals with separate concepts as it is applied in different fields.

                The challenge to evolution is that there is no known means by which sunlight, or any energy, can be turned into information without intelligent guidance.
                Stripe- Do you accept that there is a thing sometimes called "micro-evolution"?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  The challenge to evolution is that there is no known means by which sunlight, or any energy, can be turned into information without intelligent guidance.
                  If God chose to, could He make a simple modification to DNA that adds information to it?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
                    Outside what the Styer paper addresses.
                    Then you've conceded all of Johnny's points for him. You also agree with my instant response to LoL's original thread. Styer has not addressed the full and correct challenge to evolution from entropy.

                    Originally posted by dodgi View Post
                    Replication
                    I see. And would you mind sharing how it is that biological evolution ignores the trends imposed on everything else by entropy?

                    Originally posted by chair View Post
                    Stripe- Do you accept that there is a thing sometimes called "micro-evolution"?
                    I'll not use that term. Far too confusing. Populations and features follow trends that change over time. Those changes adhere to the principles of entropy in that a new feature always comes at a net cost to the population.

                    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
                    If God chose to, could He make a simple modification to DNA that adds information to it?
                    Yes.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Hey Bob Enyart,

                      Next time you're doing a real science friday, can you press Fred Williams to update the Arguments Creationists Should Not Use section on AIG to include an entry on the SLOT?

                      I bring this up because until this recent clarification on TOL, almost all challenges that I have seen presented by creationists regarding entropy have been formulated in regards to thermodynamic entropy.

                      It's nice to hear that AIG are now formally onboard with what evolutionists have been saying for years - thermodynamical entropy has nothing to do with whether evolution is possible or not. So they really should get the message out to the flock, don't you think? I mean, since they care so much about science and all.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                        I'll not use that term. Far too confusing. Populations and features follow trends that change over time. Those changes adhere to the principles of entropy in that a new feature always comes at a net cost to the population.
                        Ah. Can you give an example of how this works?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by chair View Post
                          Ah. Can you give an example of how this works?
                          Sure.

                          Ever been to Fiji?
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Then you've conceded all of Johnny's points for him. You also agree with my instant response to LoL's original thread. Styer has not addressed the full and correct challenge to evolution from entropy.
                            Just so we are not crossing paths with semantics, when you say that “Styer has not addressed the full and correct challenge to evolution from entropy”, I am going to presume you must be including information entropy, since no one I’ve seen is even pretending to counter him on thermodynamic entropy.

                            But since, as has been shown several times, Styer made it explicitly clear that he was addressing Thermodynamic entropy, and only Thermodynamic entropy, then you are correct that he has not covered the full range. He never intended to.

                            As to my upending Johnny, remember Johnny is the one-on-one participant. I am just on the sidelines, and what I say is not what decides the outcome.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Sure.

                              Ever been to Fiji?
                              No, I haven't. OS please describe the changes in the population and what the cost was.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
                                Just so we are not crossing paths with semantics, when you say that “Styer has not addressed the full and correct challenge to evolution from entropy”, I am going to presume you must be including information entropy, since no one I’ve seen is even pretending to counter him on thermodynamic entropy.
                                The challenge is from entropy. Information and thermodynamics are two fields that utilise this observed trait that can be applied to all scientific fields.

                                But since, as has been shown several times, Styer made it explicitly clear that he was addressing Thermodynamic entropy, and only Thermodynamic entropy, then you are correct that he has not covered the full range. He never intended to.
                                Do you think he would be interested in addressing the challenge as it now stands?

                                As to my upending Johnny, remember Johnny is the one-on-one participant. I am just on the sidelines, and what I say is not what decides the outcome.
                                I do tend to lump you guys together a bit, don't I. Apologies. That was not my intent. Just overly strong emphasis on the point I wanted to make...
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X