Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Nothing → explosion → hydrogen → dust → rock → water → life → us → gods.

Next question, son.

That's your take on what science says?

No wonder you don't agree, that's a a horrendous report of what science actually says.

 

[Yorzhik]

The Schrödinger Paradox

Now Schrödinger would try to link life with the underlying theorems of thermodynamics. How is order ensured, given that systems of microparticles tend toward disorder? Schrödinger caught sight of the problem. Consider a copy machine: if you copy a copy, it gets dimmer; if you copy that copy, it gets dimmer and duller still. While organisms do lose features of their parents, their copying fidelity is astonishing; and they sometimes progress or improve, evolving complex refinements, sometimes whole new features. How do organisms perpetuate (and even increase) their organization in a universe governed by the second law? We call this "the Schrödinger paradox."

The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems.​

Light is deemed the added organizing element that allows for the possibility of evolution, and increase in "order".

But this is not a "proof", it is only an explanation of what must be true in order for evolution to take place in a cell that would other wise "not" increase in order.

Evolution is presumed to be true and Schrödinger is trying to explain how entropy is over come by living cells.

The circular argument goes like this.

We know that evolution is true because sunlight organizes cells.

We know that sunlight organizes cells because evolution is true.

Cells go from order to order and order to less order, but they do not go from order to more order.

--Dave

Tyrathca does something no CDist should ever do; He locks in an answer. In this case, he admits entropy here. The first quote is the admission:

That mutational load exists is not in dispute. Even these guys admit it. But what they do, and what I think you are doing, is saying that the load can be overcome by selection. Well of course that's what we're doing. I thought I'd been obvious on that. If that weren't what we we're doing wouldn't this be an agreement that deleterious mutations occur?

 

[gcthomas]

Light is deemed the added organizing element that allows for the possibility of evolution, and increase in "order".

But this is not a "proof", it is only an explanation of what must be true in order for evolution to take place in a cell that would other wise "not" increase in order.

Evolution is presumed to be true and Schrödinger is trying to explain how entropy is over come by living cells.

The circular argument goes like this.

We know that evolution is true because sunlight organizes cells.

We know that sunlight organizes cells because evolution is true.

Cells go from order to order and order to less order, but they do not go from order to more order.

--Dave

Six firm statements, and not one with a shred of truth. Don't you get bored setting up Aunt Sallys to knock down? Is the real science too difficult to attack?

 

[noguru]

The Schrödinger Paradox

Now Schrödinger would try to link life with the underlying theorems of thermodynamics. How is order ensured, given that systems of microparticles tend toward disorder? Schrödinger caught sight of the problem. Consider a copy machine: if you copy a copy, it gets dimmer; if you copy that copy, it gets dimmer and duller still. While organisms do lose features of their parents, their copying fidelity is astonishing; and they sometimes progress or improve, evolving complex refinements, sometimes whole new features. How do organisms perpetuate (and even increase) their organization in a universe governed by the second law? We call this "the Schrödinger paradox."

The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems.​

Light is deemed the added organizing element that allows for the possibility of evolution, and increase in "order".

But this is not a "proof", it is only an explanation of what must be true in order for evolution to take place in a cell that would other wise "not" increase in order.

Evolution is presumed to be true and Schrödinger is trying to explain how entropy is over come by living cells.

The circular argument goes like this.

We know that evolution is true because sunlight organizes cells.

We know that sunlight organizes cells because evolution is true.

Cells go from order to order and order to less order, but they do not go from order to more order.

--Dave

Dave you used the article to introduce your preconceived conclusion, but you missed this part of the article:

The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems, organisms—like sugar crystals forming in a supersaturated solution—increase their organization at the expense of the rise in entropy around them. The basic answer to the paradox has to do with context and hierarchy. Material and energy are transferred from one hierarchical level to another. To understand the growth of natural complex systems such as life, we have to look at what they are part of—the energy and environment around them. In the case of ecosystems and the biosphere, increasing organization and evolution on Earth requires disorganization and degradation elsewhere. You don't get something from nothing.

And again your expectation that science provides "proof" is inaccurate. Science provides evidence, and all the evidence we have supports the paragraph I included. It does not support your claim that supernatural intervention is necessary for life to continue. Though I know that you would prefer to find a skyhook, where science only finds cranes and scaffolding.

In your illogical rant you use this sentence:

We know that evolution is true because sunlight organizes cells.

Can you admit that your sentence here is inaccurate, it is deceit through omission?

 

[Tyrathca]

Tyrathca does something no CDist should ever do; He locks in an answer. In this case, he admits entropy here. The first quote is the admission:

Originally Posted by Yorzhik That mutational load exists is not in dispute. Even these guys admit it. But what they do, and what I think you are doing, is saying that the load can be overcome by selection. Originally Posted by Tyrathca Well of course that's what we're doing. I thought I'd been obvious on that. If that weren't what we we're doing wouldn't this be an agreement that deleterious mutations occur?

Thank you Yorzhik for showing what a decietful and lying person you are to try and quote mine me so blatantly.

Even reading the quote you have of mine it is obvious I am NOT talking about entropy, regardless of how many times you tried (ineffectively and erroneously) to conflate it and the term mutational load in that thread. To quote myself only two posts earlier in that same thread:

It doesn't mean you can substitute mutation load and entropy where ever you find it whenever you want to.

 

[noguru]

Thank you Yorzhik for showing what a decietful and lying person you are to try and quote mine me so blatantly.

Even reading the quote you have of mine it is obvious I am NOT talking about entropy, regardless of how many times you tried (ineffectively and erroneously) to conflate it and the term mutational load in that thread. To quote myself only two posts earlier in that same thread:

Right, it is clear from the article Daft_Dave introduced that it is thought; entropy (informational) finds its way into biology through mutations. But that entropy (information) is a benefit (though it is like the shotgun effect) because it is within other boundaries, and environments are changing. So the variation it causes serves a positive purpose, as long as natural selection is also a factor. Yorzhik then takes the research regarding human genetics, because natural selection is no longer in play there and conflates all these more nuanced ideas into his idea that "mutational load" is exactly equivalent to "information entropy". He totally misses the more intricate understanding, and therefore ends up being deceitful to people who do understand this. Well he is also deceitful to people who do not understand this, but they just do not know he is.

I think maybe these ideas might be too complex for many YECs, but hey that is their problem.

 

[alwight]

Light is deemed the added organizing element that allows for the possibility of evolution, and increase in "order".

Light usually refers to the visible spectrum, but presumably to be more accurate you are actually talking about Electromagnetic Radiation as a form of high grade energy?

But this is not a "proof", it is only an explanation of what must be true in order for evolution to take place in a cell that would other wise "not" increase in order.

Individual living things and individuals don't evolve.

Evolution is presumed to be true and Schrödinger is trying to explain how entropy is over come by living cells.

Evolution is demonstrably true, besides which artificial selection of domestic flora and fauna rather confirms that.
Dave, even the ICR accept evolution as a fact although they do like to put "micro-" in front.
http://www.icr.org/article/nylon-eating-bacteria-evolutionary-progress/

The circular argument goes like this.

No "well-poisoning" from you then.

We know that evolution is true because sunlight organizes cells.

Again individuals don't evolve. If an individual survives and produces a new viable life then that would be where to look for genetic changes that could be part of evolution, not cells.

We know that sunlight organizes cells because evolution is true.

We know that electromagnetic radiation in an open system sustains life and allows it to evolve by the process of natural selection.

Cells go from order to order and order to less order, but they do not go from order to more order.

--Dave

Cells don't evolve, they have specific functions and life spans to which they have evolved to carry out, in the specific life form that has evolved to survive within specific parameters.
Those that do survive and reproduce may have a small part in evolution.

 

[Stuu]

Hydrogen spontaneously becoming man is the fantasy of rotted minds.

I agree.

Your later misrepresentation confirms it.

Stuart

 

[6days]

[quore=alwight]Evolution is demonstrably true[/quote]
Evolution ( the belief in a common ancestor) is demonstrably untrue.

 

[Stuu]

Evolution ( the belief in a common ancestor) is demonstrably untrue.

Feel free to demonstrate it then.

Stuart

 

[Jukia]

[quore=alwight]Evolution is demonstrably true

Evolution ( the belief in a common ancestor) is demonstrably untrue.[/QUOTE]

A demonstration? Great, just let me get a beer. OK, demonstrate away.

 

[doloresistere]

Hydrogen fuses into helium into carbon etc....matter clumps together under the influence ofpressure waves from super novae. Chemicals react and eventually duplicate themselves. Changes occur in those replicating molecules that gives some of them advantages in longevity over others. All manner of life results because of all manner of environments. Some environments produce life with extra information processing capability. This allows them to dominate all other life on the planet and ponder the nature of its own existence including YEC.

 

[Stuu]

Great, just let me get a beer.

Can you get me one while you're there? At least the beer won't be disappointing.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Hydrogen fuses into helium into carbon etc....matter clumps together under the influence ofpressure waves from super novae. Chemicals react and eventually duplicate themselves. Changes occur in those replicating molecules that gives some of them advantages in longevity over others. All manner of life results because of all manner of environments. Some environments produce life with extra information processing capability. This allows them to dominate all other life on the planet and ponder the nature of its own existence including YEC.

Do you think YECs do much pondering? I think they do much mindless Ctrl+C Ctrl+V.

Stuart

 

[Jukia]

Can you get me one while you're there? At least the beer won't be disappointing.

Stuart

Harpoon IPA work for you?

 

[Stuu]

Harpoon IPA work for you?

I'm a foreigner, so I'd have to take the recommendation of a local!

Stuart

 

[alwight]

Evolution is demonstrably true

Evolution ( the belief in a common ancestor) is demonstrably untrue.

That's actually wrong on two levels.
Belief clearly can and does exist whether it is true or not.
Common ancestry is a virtual certainty simply because of genetic evidence alone that links humans specifically to other apes. (ERVs)

 

[Stripe]

I don't know, will there ever be a time when a creationist can accurately represent an evolutionists argument?

Yes!

Evolutionists typically use fallacious reasoning.

When a creationist says that the Earth-moon system cannot be 4.5 billion years old, the evolutionist invokes an ad hoc theory and uses his theory as reason to dismiss the creationist's claim.

When a creationist answers the question: "What is a kind?" the evolutionist will pretend that gaps in the creationist's knowledge make the definition irrelevant.

When a creationist says that the bible says "six days," the creationist will insist, without good reason, that it cannot mean what it plainly says.

There are honest representations of what evolutionists argue.

There are numerous other examples of fallacious evolutionist reasoning.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Six firm statements, and not one with a shred of truth. Don't you get bored setting up Aunt Sallys to knock down? Is the real science too difficult to attack?

Just where is that "real" science?

I just love educating you guys on the history of evolution. oly:

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave you used the article to introduce your preconceived conclusion, but you missed this part of the article:

And again your expectation that science provides "proof" is inaccurate. Science provides evidence, and all the evidence we have supports the paragraph I included. It does not support your claim that supernatural intervention is necessary for life to continue. Though I know that you would prefer to find a skyhook, where science only finds cranes and scaffolding.

In your illogical rant you use this sentence:

Can you admit that your sentence here is inaccurate, it is deceit through omission?

The basic resolution of the Schrödinger paradox is simple: Organisms continue to exist and grow by importing high-quality energy from outside their bodies. They feed on what Schrödinger termed "negative entropy"—the higher organization of light quanta from the sun. Because they are not isolated, or even closed systems, organisms—like sugar crystals forming in a supersaturated solution—increase their organization at the expense of the rise in entropy around them. The basic answer to the paradox has to do with context and hierarchy. Material and energy are transferred from one hierarchical level to another. To understand the growth of natural complex systems such as life, we have to look at what they are part of—the energy and environment around them. In the case of ecosystems and the biosphere, increasing organization and evolution on Earth requires disorganization and degradation elsewhere. You don't get something from nothing.​

This is a theory that cannot be tested or proven. But go ahead tell how this can be proven, if you can.

Explanations are not proofs.

--Dave