Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

[VadeRetro]

And speaking of taxonomy, sans evolutionary theory (at least the common descent part), why would one use a tree structure to trace anthrax.

Oooh! Oooh! (Waves hand!)

Because it turns out that it's always a tree?

[VadeRetro]

You have to wonder if Aquinas would have been an Aquinasfan fan. Not saying I know. I could go either way with it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Tree blind mice...

[betty boop]

Square the existence of life with the Second Law.

Can't be done. The "life direction" runs counter to the direction of the Second Law. Yet matter seems entirely under that law. So how can life emerge from non-life?

[PatrickHenry]

At least explain to me how you "square" abiogenesis with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 'Cause I sure can't figure out any way to do it.

BB, you've been in and out of these threads long enough to know quite well that no one yet has worked out the method by which life first began. There are some ideas about it, but nothing's been demonstrated yet. However, I doubt that the Second Law is a problem. The energy for the first living molecules probably came from the same source as the energy that sustains a tree. It's the sun.

[Dimensio]

The "life direction" runs counter to the direction of the Second Law.

If that is true then the Second Law is false and it can't be used to argue anything.

Except that thus far there's no indication that the Second Law is false, because life does not, in fact, run counter to it. You need to look up the term "closed system".

[Dimensio]

evolution "might" be proved by fossils

The theory of evolution will never be "proven". Absolutely no theory in science is every proven. Why do you keep using that term when you have been repeatedly informed that it is not applicable?

[Dimensio]

and none of this new evidence contradicts a God and a translation of the Bible.

I never said that it did.

where is your issue i ask you?

My issue is with creationists -- that is, those who insist that evolution theory is false -- who use lies, misinformation, out-of-context quotes (tantamount to lying) and bizarre unsupported assertions about the motives of scientists in their arguments.

[Dimensio]

you say God doesnt exist.

When did I say this?

[betty boop]

The energy for the first living molecules probably came from the same source as the energy that sustains a tree. It's the sun.

That's a huge leap, PH. You have (1) inert matter. Then suddenly, magically, you have (2) a living molecule. The sun did it. Okay, 'splain to me how inert matter cooked up the ability to utilize energy so that it could become alive. The Second Law says that if you leave a material system to its own devices, entropy -- heat death -- takes over, not life. How did matter suddenly get "smart enuf" to utilize energy for the life process -- which is the very opposite of heat death? Did the Second Law find a way to overrule itself so that matter could do this?

[balrog666]

Let's test your understanding, balrog: Give a rational defense of abiogensis based on evidence.

At least explain to me how you "square" abiogenesis with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 'Cause I sure can't figure out any way to do it.

All right, who are you and what did you do with the real Betty Boop?

[Dimensio]

That's a huge leap, PH. You have (1) inert matter. Then suddenly, magically, you have (2) a living molecule.

Only creationists assert the use of magic when explaining the origin of the first life forms.

Okay, 'splain to me how inert matter cooked up the ability to utilize energy so that it could become alive.

Why? Are you ignorant of basic chemistry?

The Second Law says that if you leave a material system to its own devices, entropy -- heat death -- takes over, not life.

You left out the part about the second law only applying to closed systems. That's a fundamental creationist error, they ignore the fact that the second law only applies to closed systems. When a planet is getting a constant stream of photons, it's not a closed system. Yes, there was an overall net increase in entropy, but the bulk of that entropy occured within the large yellow star several million miles of the planet receiving the energy input.

How did matter suddenly get "smart enuf" to utilize energy for the life process -- which is the very opposite of heat death?

It's not about matter being "smart", it's about matter doing what matter does given a steady influx of energy into the system.

Did the Second Law find a way to overrule itself so that matter could do this?

The Second Law applies just fine, and there weren't any exceptions applied. You just don't understand how the second law works.

[PatrickHenry]

That's a huge leap, PH. You have (1) inert matter. Then suddenly, magically, you have (2) a living molecule.

I think I've already said we don't yet know the means by which it happened.

The sun did it.

I didn't say that. I said that's the source of the engergy.

Okay, 'splain to me how inert matter cooked up the ability to utilize energy so that it could become alive.

I can't. No one can. Not yet.

The Second Law says that if you leave a material system to its own devices, entropy -- heat death -- takes over, not life.

No, that's not it at all, except in a closed system with no external source of energy. We've got the sun. The sun, BB. That's where all life on earth gets its energy. (Except for a few creatures that live in weird undersea hot water vents.)

[betty boop]

...life does not, in fact, run counter to it. You need to look up the term "closed system".

Life is an open system, or rather an open process. Material systems are closed. The Second Law pertains to the latter. But abiogenesis says the latter becomes the former. All you need is to add a little sunshine, and viola! Life results!!!

This is a "just so" story -- no explanation given of how this stunning transition could have been effected; just glide over the "missing part" and pretend it's not missing. And then (try to) call it "science." Jeez!!!!

[AndrewC]

The energy for the first living molecules probably came from the same source as the energy that sustains a tree.

Why do you accept the "premise" that a molecule is alive? Someone is trying to slip a logical fallacy into the argument.

[PatrickHenry]

This is a "just so" story -- no explanation given of how this stunning transition could have been effected; just glide over the "missing part" and pretend it's not missing. And then (try to) call it "science." Jeez!!!!

Calm down, BB. No one is giving you a "just so" story. It's an area for investigation (unrelated to evolution), and it's being investigated. You gotta problem wid dat?

[js1138]

Yet life exists. Either the Second Law is false or you misunderstand it. I'm betting on the latter. The first instance of life is indeed a mystery, but there is nothing in science that did not begin as a mystery.

[betty boop]

I think I've already said we don't yet know the means by which it happened.

Well, do you really mind if someone tries a different approach to see what they can turn up? Or do you really expect it will/must be a Darwinist who comes up with that "Eureka!" moment?

[balrog666]

That's a huge leap, PH. You have (1) inert matter. Then suddenly, magically, you have (2) a living molecule.

Is it? You have (1) inert matter a very large vat of chemical soup. Then suddenly, magically a long time later, you have (2) a living self-replicating molecule(s).

[AndrewC]

It's not about matter being "smart", it's about matter doing what matter does given a steady influx of energy into the system.

It takes more than energy to turn dirt into the Empire State building. I would venture to say Venus has received more energy from the sun than the Earth has, and no one has discovered a mud hut there.