User Tag List

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 189

Thread: Discussion thread for Bob and Johnny's One on One

  1. #31
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    The problem with the article is that it says there is enough available energy to drive evolution, correct?
    I would phrase it slightly differently, since a) it is not a “problem” at all, and b) “driving” something gives the impression that it is forcing it. It just makes the point that from a thermodynamic viewpoint, limitations on evolution imposed by entropy are non-issues.

  2. #32
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    215
    Why don't you guys just think of a tree falling in the woods. The sound that is made is made regardless of the ability of the receiver to to disseminate the energy transference or if the receiver is present at all has no bearing on the energy producing the effect. Energy is never lost just transformed into another form. The absence of the receive to disseminate equals silence. All energy carries with it information. It is the ability to discern that information that makes it possible to describe the information given.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  3. #33
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,134
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 7,322 Times in 5,835 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147791
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    The problem with the article is that it says there is enough available energy to drive evolution, correct?
    My problem with the article was that it tried to describe a qualitative aspect of entropy (that creatures evolve into more complex forms) with a quantitative measure (statistics).

    Statistics cannot describe information, it can only analyse data and represent it with generalisations.

    This is the challenge to evolution and something not addressed by the article LoL presented.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

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


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (June 3rd, 2016)

  5. #34
    Over 2000 post club elected4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    My problem with the article was that it tried to describe a qualitative aspect of entropy (that creatures evolve into more complex forms) with a quantitative measure (statistics).

    Statistics cannot describe information, it can only analyse data and represent it with generalizations.

    This is the challenge to evolution and something not addressed by the article LoL presented.
    I am with you on that. Just because a specie develop differing DNA in differing environments for survival purposes does not mean that all life came from a single cell. All life did have a single source, God! It is this fact that modern evolutionist deny.
    Galatians 5:13 ¶For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    The borrower is slave to the linder. What makes this country think it is rich and free?

  6. #35
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    My problem with the article was that it tried to describe a qualitative aspect of entropy (that creatures evolve into more complex forms) with a quantitative measure (statistics).
    Makes no difference. Statistical Thermo encompasses everything traditional Thermo does. If you don’t like it, then you are going to have to discredit thermo altogether.
    Statistics cannot describe information, it can only analyse data and represent it with generalisations.

    This is the challenge to evolution and something not addressed by the article LoL presented.
    You are correct that “information” was not addressed. As has been repeatedly pointed out, in Styer’s opening sentence he says he is addressing the relationship between Thermodynamic Entropy and Evolution. Maybe you feel that information theory or other things prohibit evolution. Fine - then make your arguments based on those things. But the claim that Thermodynamic Entropy precludes Evolution is one of the most frequent ones made by creationists. Numerous threads in these forums make that claim.

    Styer has moved beyond the usual “Does too!”, “Does not!”, “Does too!” claims to specific numbers. Now either some creationist that is technically qualified to respond to the math needs to show a specific error in Styer’s paper, or else Creationists need to find a new pseudo-science argument to replace the fallacious thermodynamics one.

  7. #36
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,853
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 201 Times in 161 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePhy View Post
    I would phrase it slightly differently, since a) it is not a “problem” at all, and b) “driving” something gives the impression that it is forcing it. It just makes the point that from a thermodynamic viewpoint, limitations on evolution imposed by entropy are non-issues.
    Quite. My post was poorly worded.

    Let's see if I can explain better. The article says limitations on evolution are a non-issue because the increase in entropy came from the heat flux of the sun-earth system. Is that clearer?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  8. #37
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,134
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 7,322 Times in 5,835 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147791
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePhy View Post
    Makes no difference. Statistical Thermo encompasses everything traditional Thermo does. If you don’t like it, then you are going to have to discredit thermo altogether.
    No. We just have to agree that numbers, averages and regression do not say anything about a biological entity other than to reduce its quantitative parts down to a set of numbers. If thermodynamic and entropy laws are unable to guide thought on how the real world operates then what good are they?

    Maybe you feel that information theory or other things prohibit evolution. Fine - then make your arguments based on those things. But the claim that Thermodynamic Entropy precludes Evolution is one of the most frequent ones made by creationists. Numerous threads in these forums make that claim.


    The idea that thermodynamic entropy is the only thing involved in the challenge to evolution is absurd. The challenge has consistently been for evolutionists to show how thermal and informational entropies convert one into the other.

    Styer has moved beyond the usual “Does too!”, “Does not!”, “Does too!” claims to specific numbers. Now either some creationist that is technically qualified to respond to the math needs to show a specific error in Styer’s paper, or else Creationists need to find a new pseudo-science argument to replace the fallacious thermodynamics one.
    The error in Styer's paper is that he misses the point of the challenge. He addresses the issue of thermodynamic entropy without addressing the issue of information entropy. I stated this clearly in my first response to the original thread and numerous times throughout.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

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


  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (June 3rd, 2016)

  10. #38
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    No. We just have to agree that numbers, averages and regression do not say anything about a biological entity other than to reduce its quantitative parts down to a set of numbers. If thermodynamic and entropy laws are unable to guide thought on how the real world operates then what good are they?
    I am not overly interested in pursuing a continuum of vague rationalizations arguing against a specific application of a fundamental law of physics to a specific problem. A goal of science is to show that the Laws can be applied to specific applications.


    The idea that thermodynamic entropy is the only thing involved in the challenge to evolution is absurd. The challenge has consistently been for evolutionists to show how thermal and informational entropies convert one into the other.
    I didn’t say thermodynamic entropy was the only challenge. I said it turns out to be a non-issue. Any other challenges depending on different arguments are unaffected.
    The error in Styer's paper is that he misses the point of the challenge. He addresses the issue of thermodynamic entropy without addressing the issue of information entropy. I stated this clearly in my first response to the original thread and numerous times throughout.
    Interesting. Styer sees a common argument made by Creationists. He addresses that specific argument. And now some yo-yo on some obscure web site decides he knows what it is that Styer should have been addressing. Do you want to tell him what cereal to eat in the morning, too?

  11. #39
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,134
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 7,322 Times in 5,835 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147791
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePhy View Post
    I am not overly interested in pursuing a continuum of vague rationalizations arguing against a specific application of a fundamental law of physics to a specific problem. A goal of science is to show that the Laws can be applied to specific applications.
    How does the sun generate more information in the genome?

    Interesting. Styer sees a common argument made by Creationists. He addresses that specific argument. And now some yo-yo on some obscure web site decides he knows what it is that Styer should have been addressing. Do you want to tell him what cereal to eat in the morning, too?
    Styer may well have responded according to the challenge he was issued, but LoL brought Styer's paper in saying that a challenge had been answered. I immediately told LoL that he did not understand what the challenge was and reiterated that challenge. Since then I had not even mentioned Styer, read the article or even clicked on LoL's link.

    I was responding to LoL.

    And, yeah, I told him he should have Co-co Pops...
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

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


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (June 3rd, 2016)

  13. #40
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    496
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    How does the sun generate more information in the genome?
    Who said it does?
    Styer may well have responded according to the challenge he was issued, but LoL brought Styer's paper in saying that a challenge had been answered. I immediately told LoL that he did not understand what the challenge was and reiterated that challenge. Since then I had not even mentioned Styer, read the article or even clicked on LoL's link.

    I was responding to LoL.
    My comments, and Styer’s paper, address Thermodynamic Entropy. It is clear that Enyart thinks that Styer was surreptitiously speaking of Information entropy in discussing the exchange of entropy from one place to another. But that was wrong, Styer was hard-lined to an analysis of the Thermodynamic issues involved. You are welcome to think that there are issues beyond Styer’s paper.

  14. #41
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,134
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 7,322 Times in 5,835 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147791
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePhy View Post
    Who said it does?
    All the atheists responding to the (errant) challenge to evolution from the second law of thermodynamics.

    My comments, and Styer’s paper, address Thermodynamic Entropy.
    Then it is unresponsive and irrelevant.

    It is clear that Enyart thinks that Styer was surreptitiously speaking of Information entropy in discussing the exchange of entropy from one place to another. But that was wrong, Styer was hard-lined to an analysis of the Thermodynamic issues involved. You are welcome to think that there are issues beyond Styer’s paper.
    I'll let you (or perhaps Johnny) thrash that out with Pastor Enyart.

    It seems perfectly clear that Styer fails in one of two ways. If he was responding to the the challenge then he needed to address information entropy. You claim he did not address information entropy.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

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


  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (June 3rd, 2016)

  16. #42
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    It seems perfectly clear that Styer fails in one of two ways. If he was responding to the challenge then he needed to address information entropy. You claim he did not address information entropy.
    The challenge, however, is not just from information entropy. Creationists have erroneously used the 2nd law as a challenge -- i.e. the challenge from thermodynamic entropy. Styer writes,

    Does the second law of thermodynamics prohibit biological evolution?

    The erroneous answer “yes” is sometimes presented in the creationist literature, and more often in creationist web sites. Henry Morris, for example, finds it “obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model” because “every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.” (cite: Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974.)
    The Henry Morris challenge from the second law is the challenge he addressed.
    “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

  17. #43
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    15,134
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 7,322 Times in 5,835 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147791
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Styer states exactly what challenge he was responding to. He writes, Does the second law of thermodynamics prohibit biological evolution? The erroneous answer “yes” is sometimes presented in the creationist literature, and more often in creationist web sites. Henry Morris, for example, finds it “obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model” because “every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.” (cite: Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974.)That's the challenge he addressed.
    Application of the second law is part of the challenge.

    I believe Pastor Enyart is saying that he could have struck down the challenge far more effectively had he shown its incompatibility and incompleteness. Just as throughout LoL's thread certain posters told me a number of times that the second law only applies to thermodynamic entropy so Styer would have been far more effective.

    But I'd prefer it if y'all would thrash that out.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

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


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (June 3rd, 2016)

  19. #44
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,853
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 201 Times in 161 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    248499
    Creationists have never questioned that energy from the sun was not available or not enough to power evolution.

    What has been questioned is two-fold; on the information front, that the sun does not convert heat energy to information and so there is no source for the information content in DNA. And on the thermodynamic front, that the sun's energy must be channeled through a mechanism to start life and to create the diversity we see in organisms today.
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  20. #45
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,792
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Creationists have never questioned that energy from the sun was not available or not enough to power evolution.

    What has been questioned is two-fold; on the information front, that the sun does not convert heat energy to information and so there is no source for the information content in DNA. And on the thermodynamic front, that the sun's energy must be channeled through a mechanism to start life and to create the diversity we see in organisms today.
    DNA is created by the standard chemical/physical processes that create every molecule in your body. This information/DNA argument is totally bogus.
    "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

    "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

    "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

    "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us