Creation vs. Evolution

alwight said:

I don't disagree with most of this but imo the body is a machine that just wears out far more from use rather than entropy.

Click to expand...

Entropy definitions

A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information

entropy definition
theory: A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

The entropy of a system is related to the amount of information it contains. A highly ordered system can be described using fewer bits of information than a disordered one.

--Dave

noguru said:

Yep. It is quite strange that YECs leave out so many relevant details when they report on something in science. One might think they are a bit cowardly in their apprehension to admit the reality.

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you presuppose what reality is literally from an ancient scripture that was probably never meant to be literal in the first place.

DFT_Dave said:

Entropy definitions

A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information

entropy definition
theory: A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

The entropy of a system is related to the amount of information it contains. A highly ordered system can be described using fewer bits of information than a disordered one.

--Dave

Click to expand...

But a living thing is not a closed system since it receives input from outside, entropy applies to a closed system.

DFT_Dave said:

A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

Click to expand...

A cell is NOT a closed system.

Silent Hunter said:

A cell is NOT a closed system.

Click to expand...

He is not listening. I'm sure he will soon be back starting from the beginning of his cycle of misrepresentation and misdirection. Oh and don't forget equivocation.

:rotfl:

It sometimes seems like he is drunk. You know how drunks always repeat the same non sense again, and again, and again...

DFT_Dave said:

Entropy definitions

A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information

entropy definition
theory: A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

The entropy of a system is related to the amount of information it contains. A highly ordered system can be described using fewer bits of information than a disordered one.

--Dave

Click to expand...

As I pointed out earlier, SLoT applies to a closed system. It can be generally applied to open systems in that local concentrations of energy will dissipate and move towards equilibrium. But with living cells we have an input of energy from metabolism, rooted in either chemosynthesis or photosynthesis. Your attempts to keep yourself blind to this reality, by no means forces all other people to remain blind.

noguru said:

As I pointed out earlier, SLoT applies to a closed system. It can be generally applied to open systems in that local concentrations of energy will dissipate and move towards equilibrium. But with living cells we have an input of energy from metabolism, rooted in either chemosynthesis or photosynthesis. Your attempts to keep yourself blind to this reality, by no means forces all other people to remain blind.

Click to expand...

Most of the energy in chemosynthesis come from the ATP molecule which is produced in abundance in the mitochondria. I believe it is oxygen acting as an electron acceptor that drives the production of ATP.

doloresistere said:

Most of the energy in chemosynthesis come from the ATP molecule which is produced in abundance in the mitochondria. I believe it is oxygen acting as an electron acceptor that drives the production of ATP.

Click to expand...

Some species of bacteria also utilize chemosynthesis to extract energy from the environmental chemicals around them. Others use photosynthesis. Those that use photosynthesis were the first to produce chlorophyll, obviously.

In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a “fact” that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as “fact” leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law. But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimov’s words) “all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.”

Silent Hunter said:

A cell is NOT a closed system.

Click to expand...

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law. But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation)... So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics? The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are: a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Explain to us how the sun converts heat energy into information. What mechanism is there? What machinery? What process?

The evolutionary mantra of "it's an open system" is like asking people to believe that a fire can add pages to a book.

Stripe said:

In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a “fact” that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as “fact” leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law. But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimov’s words) “all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.”

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law. But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation)... So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics? The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are: a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

-source.​

Explain to us how the sun converts heat energy into information. What mechanism is there? What machinery? What process?

The evolutionary mantra of "it's an open system" is like asking people to believe that a fire can add pages to a book.

Click to expand...

Ahhh. The king of misrepresentation and misdirection of science has shown his wimpy little head now.

Who says that SLoT is the foremost law of nature? There are other factors you ignore. Would you like a remedial class in FLoT, photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, metabolism...

We also have much evidence that nature maintains itself. That is until man places his things in nature and forces his ideas on nature. Of course those things are not sustainable from natural processes alone, though nature can be utilized for human purposes if proper planning is done. But we have lots of evidence that nature sustains itself with natural processes. We have absolutely no evidence that any "supernatural" intervention is required for nature to maintain itself.

But if you think we have positive evidence for supernatural intervention then by all means include it now. And by positive evidence I do not mean mysteries in the natural world, where you insert your interpretation of Genesis as an explanation for mysteries. That's not science. That is just some blind and stupid YECs trying to use science as a pulpit to force their interpretation of Genesis on other people.

Can you explain to us your view of how this is done by supernatural means?

alwight said:

6days said:

You are confusing evidence with interpretations and conclusions.
For example I quoted a secular source stating antibiotic resistance was in the genome of bacteria long before modern antibiotic medicines. That was the evidence. You then confused some evolutionary spin in the article as if their interpretation was evidence...it isn't. They were simply attempting to shoehorn evidence ...a speculative conclusion to fit their beliefs.

Click to expand...

No I really don't think anyone from your link was even remotely suggesting that bacteria were created as is,

Click to expand...

Another strawman argument from alwight....
Nobody said or even hinted the article said that.

alwight said:

6days said:

I agree that your position is 100% biased, as is mine.
You assume everything can be explained without the Creator, and often need rely on just so stories to explain origins of life, origins of energy, origin of man, origin of consciousness, origin of sex, origin of information etc etc

Click to expand...

Yes I accept my bias and I do presume that natural things will have entirely natural origins because there only seems to be a natural, so logically my bias has to be entirely for the natural. To have your bias otoh is to disregard material evidence in favour of something un-evidenced which seems illogical to me.
I doubt that anything supernatural even could exist so why believe that it even might.

Click to expand...

Your bias prevents you from real science ...real knowledge. Your bias considers only one alternative and is not willing to follow the evidence when it leads to a Creator. Your bias is the reason you accept non-science beliefs, such as life from non life.

alwight said:

6days said:

Richard Dawkins often uses the phrase " appearance of design". He admits things appear designed, yet he encourages people to accept any explanation other than the most obvious....things appear designed, because they are designed.

Click to expand...

Somehow I rather suspect that you are not an avid reader of Dawkins 6days, and don't know personally what he might often say, so this must be spin from a creationist website presumably, right?

Click to expand...

And your comments must all be spin from Talkorigins? Can you present a logical argument without all the strawmans and ad homs?



Dawkins has become nothing more than a showman. His books have progressed from mostly science, to mostly his religion. His arguments often are poor/ illogical (Not always of course) . Is there anything in "greatest show" that you think is a persuasive argument? (Or any other book of his?) Dawkins is also a bit of a chicken...He picks and chooses weak opponents to debate, but dodges the better Christian debaters.


You seem to doubt that Dawkins says things have the appearance of design. In this video, as an example, he says our bodies were not designed... They just appear that way... and stop using that word!!
Interesting video... Watch them try not say 'designed'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I&feature=player_embedded
And watch for Dawkins strawman arguments.

DFT_Dave said:

Entropy definitions

A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information

entropy definition
theory: A measure of the disorder of a system. Systems tend to go from a state of order (low entropy) to a state of maximum disorder (high entropy).

The entropy of a system is related to the amount of information it contains. A highly ordered system can be described using fewer bits of information than a disordered one.

--Dave

Click to expand...

You conflate information entropy with thermodynamic entropy again. As you know they are different things that use a similar name simply due to one equation from each looking similar.

In information theory there is no tendency to disorder/higher entropy in an information channel with sufficient capacity. That is why digital TV doesn't show the noise on screen that analogue TV did.

Since you have been informed of the distinction before but continue regardless then you are either equivocating like mad to preserve your argument or you are clueless.

Which is it?

:idunno:

noguru said:

Ahhh. The king of misrepresentation and misdirection of science has shown his wimpy little head now.

Who says that SLoT is the foremost law of nature? There are other factors you ignore. Would you like a remedial class in FLoT, photosynthesis, chemosynthesis, metabolism...

We also have much evidence that nature maintains itself. That is until man places his things in nature and forces his ideas on nature. Of course those things are not sustainable from natural processes alone, though nature can be utilized for human purposes if proper planning is done. But we have lots of evidence that nature sustains itself with natural processes. We have absolutely no evidence that any "supernatural" intervention is required for nature to maintain itself.

But if you think we have positive evidence for supernatural intervention then by all means include it now. And by positive evidence I do not mean mysteries in the natural world, where you insert your interpretation of Genesis as an explanation for mysteries. That's not science. That is just some blind and stupid YECs trying to use science as a pulpit to force their interpretation of Genesis on other people.

Can you explain to us your view of how this is done by supernatural means?

Click to expand...

No, I cannot explain it, but I know Someone Who is going to explain it Very Soon! And my Invisible Friend won't be Invisible Any Longer. And those who've called Him my invisible friend are going to regret it, because He doesn't like it at all. Thank Him that He's so forgiving. Give it a bit more time, is all I ask. I'd say one month to two years. I don't know exactly when, per His idea.

MichaelC

6days said:

Another strawman argument from alwight....
Nobody said or even hinted the article said that.

Click to expand...

Then make up your mind I thought you were a creationist and were claiming that DNA was pre-created as is, so now you're an "evolutionist"? :liberals:

6days said:

Your bias prevents you from real science ...real knowledge. Your bias considers only one alternative and is not willing to follow the evidence when it leads to a Creator. Your bias is the reason you accept non-science beliefs, such as life from non life.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps I was only humouring you 6days. Yes from your perspective I may show some bias it's true, but if as I suspect there is in fact no such thing as a supernatural, only a natural, then by my own measure I'm not in reality being biased at all.
If otoh your supernatural can be shown to even exist, only then would there be some relevance or context to the word "bias". I don't know how biased I would be then, but currently though I simply deal only with the natural real world as I see it, not your supposed supernatural one.

6days said:

And your comments must all be spin from Talkorigins? Can you present a logical argument without all the strawmans and ad homs?

Click to expand...

I won't claim never to have used such Talkorigin based information as a quick reference, only very rarely. But if we're talking about verifiable peer reviewed science then there are plenty of other reputable agenda-free sources available to double check facts with. If Talkorigins simply manufactured eye candy and spin for "evolutionists" then I'm rather sure that "evolutionists" would be more than able to recognise it and compare it with such other sources.

6days said:

Dawkins has become nothing more than a showman. His books have progressed from mostly science, to mostly his religion. His arguments often are poor/ illogical (Not always of course) . Is there anything in "greatest show" that you think is a persuasive argument? (Or any other book of his?) Dawkins is also a bit of a chicken...He picks and chooses weak opponents to debate, but dodges the better Christian debaters.

Click to expand...

Feel better now?

6days said:

You seem to doubt that Dawkins says things have the appearance of design. In this video, as an example, he says our bodies were not designed... They just appear that way... and stop using that word!!
Interesting video... Watch them try not say 'designed'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAVyktynD_I&feature=player_embedded
And watch for Dawkins strawman arguments.

Click to expand...

What you fail to understand 6days is that Dawkins is aware more than most just how much YECs will deliberately misquote words used generally as a figure of speech to try to give a whole new and unintended meaning.
The word "design" is an excellent example of this. Most natural scientists do not need to concern themselves with creationists and will talk about "design" simply as a way to describe the overall construction of something, no intention at all of invoking an intelligent designer. Their colleagues and peers all understand what they mean and there is no confusion.

Dawkins otoh is well used to dealing with creationists and knows that he at least won't be allowed to get away with using the word "design" as a figure of speech. He knows that creationists will claim a gotcha moment, as they do, which is why when that word comes up he pretty much always has to labour the point and make the meaning absolutely clear, mainly for the benefit of YECs, that no actual designer is being proposed, lest such words are disingenuously quoted out of context at some future time.

6days said:

6gays has always been nothing more than a showman. His posts are only from religion, and no science. His arguments often are poor/ illogical (but always deceitful). Is there anything in "greatest show" that you think is a persuasive argument? (Or any other book of his?) 6gays is also a bit of a chicken...He picks and chooses weak opponents/posts to debate, but dodges the better Christian debaters/posts like Noguru.

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

MichaelCadry said:

No, I cannot explain it, but I know Someone Who is going to explain it Very Soon! And my Invisible Friend won't be Invisible Any Longer. And those who've called Him my invisible friend are going to regret it, because He doesn't like it at all. Thank Him that He's so forgiving. Give it a bit more time, is all I ask. I'd say one month to two years. I don't know exactly when, per His idea.

MichaelC

Click to expand...

Soon

alwight said:

Soon

Click to expand...

One of my favorite groups from the 70s. I saw them back in 89 when they resurrected the "in the round" stage from the 70s. Jon Anderson has the perfect voice for their music. Have you ever listened to his album where he pairs up with Vangelis?

http://youtu.be/Y_PBU9a8FQY

Did you see in the morning light
I really talked, yes I did, to Gods early dawning light
And I was privileged to be as I am to this day
To be with you. To be with you

Click to expand...

noguru said:

One of my favorite groups from the 70s. I saw them back in 89 when they resurrected the "in the round" stage from the 70s. Jon Anderson has the perfect voice for their music. Have you ever listened to his album where he pairs up with Vangelis?

Click to expand...

Yes (sic ) I'm a fan, I've owned most if not all of the Yes albums since the vinyl days, much played, when I originally thought it was rubbish for some reason but soon discovered it's actually excellent stuff after hearing "Yessongs" (live).
I also have "The Friends Of Mr. Cairo" & "Short Stories" Jon & Vangelis.
Yes live albums are particularly worth having but I've never seen them live except on video.

AlwIght said:

6days said:

Another strawman argument from alwight....
Nobody said or even hinted the article said that.

Click to expand...

Then make up your mind I thought you were a creationist and were claiming that DNA was pre-created as is…

Click to expand...

Rather than admit a mistake you now are just being dishonest. You can't even claim ignorance on this because you know that the Biblical model is the ability is adaptation, variation, rapid speciation etc.

AlwIght said:

.., but currently though I simply deal only with the natural real world as I see it, not your supposed supernatural one.

Click to expand...

You are committed to your religion, your system of beliefs, holding to it with ardor and faith. Beliefs about the past are not science. Biblical creationists, theistic evolutionists, intelligent design'ists, and atheists all examine the exact same evidence but interpret it to fit their belief system.

6days said:

Dawkins .... is why when that word comes up he pretty much always has to labour the point and make the meaning absolutely clear, mainly for the benefit of YECs, that no actual designer is being proposed, lest such words are disingenuously quoted out of context at some future time.

Click to expand...

That's much the same as what I said. I said that Dawkins will often say things appear designed, but he won't allow himself, because of his religion, to even consider the possibility that they are designed.

Dawkins has said he would rather believe aliens seeded life on earth than an Intelligent designer. That is interesting! It shows Dawkins is more about promoting his religion than he is about science and truth.

In the beginning, God created

6days said:

Rather than admit a mistake you now are just being dishonest. You can't even claim ignorance on this because you know that the Biblical model is the ability is adaptation, variation, rapid speciation etc.

Click to expand...

FTR I've always been completely honest here.:AMR:

Surely you also believe that DNA information doesn't increase and that you thought your link was something that supported that notion?
Please explain why else would you have used that link?

6days said:

You are committed to your religion, your system of beliefs, holding to it with ardor and faith. Beliefs about the past are not science. Biblical creationists, theistic evolutionists, intelligent design'ists, and atheists all examine the exact same evidence but interpret it to fit their belief system.

Click to expand...

Rubbish 6days, admit it, you have already presupposed your religious beliefs based on a literal adherence to an ancient scripture. Material evidence has to somehow be fashioned to comply with that belief.

Science otoh doesn't need to nor should it presuppose anything nor does it have your particular pre-conclusions in mind, it is simply led by the evidence into whatever those conclusions are. If those conclusions aren't particularly helpful to your particular beliefs then so be it that's your problem, not a problem for science.
Science and religious belief are two different things, Non-Overlapping MagisteriA (NOMA).

6days said:

That's much the same as what I said. I said that Dawkins will often say things appear designed, but he won't allow himself, because of his religion, to even consider the possibility that they are designed.

Click to expand...

Science isn't a matter of opinion about whether something seems to be designed or not.

6days said:

Dawkins has said he would rather believe aliens seeded life on earth than an Intelligent designer. That is interesting! It shows Dawkins is more about promoting his religion than he is about science and truth.

In the beginning, God created

Click to expand...

Now you're being blatantly dishonest imo. He has never to my knowledge, nor to Ben Stein (Expelled) btw, even remotely admitted to having any such preference, he simply accepts the possibility (among others) of an alien seed when asked. He is an outspoken atheist yes, he gets up the noses of creationists yes, but who is also a respected scientist who doesn't seek to pander to his own preferences through science.
If I am wrong then please do cite your sources, even if it is the ICR. lain: