Ya gotta love 'em!
Posted on 06/03/2005 6:25:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of a showing later this month of a film that supports the theory of "intelligent design."
The museum said it would not cancel the screening of the film, "The Privileged Planet," but would return the $16,000 that the Discovery Institute, an organization that promotes a skeptical view of the Darwinian theory of evolution, had paid it.
Proposals for events at the National Museum of Natural History are reviewed by members of the staff, and it shares sponsorship of all events. After the news of the showing caused controversy, however, officials of the museum screened "Privileged Planet" for themselves.
"The major problem with the film is the wrap-up," said Randall Kremer, a museum spokesman.
"It takes a philosophical bent rather than a clear statement of the science, and that's where we part ways with them."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Not true, according to your belief system Elsie's distorted view of the theory of evolution.
Changed, for accuracy's sake.
The classic false dilemma fallacy (otherwise known as the black and white fallacy). There never was a distinct division between human and non-human except in the the creationist strawman. It would be like you taking a look at a mile long paper tape with black on one end and white on the other end and every thing in between, shades that transit between to two extremes, and arbitrarily picking a point on the tape and declaring everything to the right as white and everything to the left as black.
Really, another person implying that evolution = atheism. Jeez, don't you guys get tired of trotting out the same old crap on every one of these threads?
|
Aahh, come on! I look so good with a swelled head and so funny in those silly DC janitorial jumpsuits. (BTW, could you get someone to put a zipper in the front)?
Then how DID humans get here?
Them other guys must be right: you're still ooze....
...slithering away from the FACT that Humans HAD to come from something else, in your SCIENCE studies.
White - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Black |
Ya gotta love 'em!
Through a somewhat fuzzy process of speciation. You want the process to be neat- Species A one generation then poof! Species B the next generation.
The process is more likely that over many, many generations Species A goes through a gradual process where you have Species A, A1, A3, A4 etc. At some point species A10 (or whatever) drifts far enough away from the rest of its species that we end up calling it Species B. Perhaps Species' A1-A9 all die out. Perhaps Species A10 gets isolated from Species A1-A9 and drifts too far away from the other subspecies to interbreed with them.
It's not as clean and clear as God creating Man from dust, but there you have it.
Okay. Evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because the 2nd law of thermodynamics most certainly does NOT prohibit an orderly system from arising from a disorderly one spontaneously. It simply states that the total entropy of a closed system must always increase. Even granting the commonly used equivalence of entropy and disorder which is not strictly correct, it is not implied that evolution is ruled out on the basis of the 2nd law since the earth is not a closed system. The 2nd law is therefore not applicable to the earth.
It is possible to widen the system and produce a system that is to good approximation a closed system, though, namely the solar system. Evolution in the solar system is still not ruled out however because the 2nd law states that the TOTAL entropy of the solar system must increase, not that the entropy of each component of it must increase. It is possible for the entropy of the earth to decrease so long as there is another part of the solar system whose entropy increases.
What part of the solar system is increasing in entropy? Why the sun, of course. Entropy is defined technically as the heat gained by a system in a reversible process divided by the temperature at which this process occurs. At the surface of the sun, there is heat lost from the sun at a temperature of 6000K, and heat gained by the surrounding space at a temperature of 3K. If the heat transfer is given by Q, then the entropy of this process is given by Q/3 - Q/6000 = 1999q/6000. When this heat is absorbed on the earth, it is lost from space at a temperature of 3K and gained by the earth, which has an average temperature of ~280K. If we allow the heat gained by the earth to be represented by q, then the entropy change in this process is given by q/280 - q/3 = -277q/840.
The total entropy for this process, even assuming that q=Q, which would imply unrealistically that the earth absorbs all the heat given off by the sun would then be 1999Q/6000 - 277Q/840 = 143Q/42000, which is a positive value, as required by the second law of thermodyamics. It is also a very large value, since the amount of heat given off by the sun is enormous. It certainly provides a very large entropy resevoir to drive the process of evolution, therefore demonstrating that the process of evolution does NOT violate the second law.
I don't suppose that's good enough for you or your creationist friends, however. I am sure this stupid, riduculous argument against evolution will arise again and again in future threads. It does get frustrating when you have to debunk the same old already debunked nonsense repeatedly, so please accept my apologies if I come off sounding peevish or negative in this post.
Myself, I have not really question this 2nd law argument in and of itself.
What I take exception to, is a portion of the sentence that states: "...drive the process of evolution ..."
I keep trying to find out (other than a word picture) just what IS this 'process'!
If it IS a process, then surely it can be duplicated here on Earth, since this is where this 'process' is supposed to have happened.
Is it no WONDER that the C crowd would like to see this 'gradualism' in the 'record', other than these big supposed jumps between supposed relatives? (Who happen to have nice, discrete names given to them.)
And you missed the electrical theory. And X-Ray radiation. Even binary logic like in your computer.
God made animals, and He made man. That humans had an "animal" predicessor is irrelevant to the fact that God made man in his image.
If that bothers you, well sorry. It's just the facts.
"W" is smart enough to keep his mouth shut on this one. So I don't know what he thinks.
But I wouldn't doubt it if a few folks given appointments by "W" also happen to be creationists, and feel free to push their views because they figure "W" wouldn't mind.
Perhaps the Smithsonian is a warehouse for loyal supporters of the current administration. I know that I visted the Air and Space Museum not long after the Clinton's came to town. And they refused to take my leather coat in the cloak room, specifically because it was leather. Sounds like something Hillary's followers would do.
You obviously misunderstood what I said. Tell me; on that short continuum you have on your post, where does white end and black begin?
But his science advisor, not too long ago, came out and said that, of course, evolution occurred, and that anyone who disputed that is a mouth-breathing troglodyte. (I'm paraphrasing here, of course.)
The C crowd is not willing to accept the gradualism we see in the 'record', nor are they willing to accept the difficulty in finding fossils that either did not survive the trip through time or are still hiding dozens of feet underground. The probability of a particular fossil being created is extremely small as is the probability it will not be lost to erosion or tectonics through time. Then we have to consider the tiny probability of a human finding it as it becomes exposed to the elements.
Even with this very very small probability, the C crowd, as you call them, demand that any series of transitional fossils be complete.
As far as discrete names are concerned, language is discrete; how else should taxonomy describe species?
ostentatiously understated placemarker
Again. I said,
"Every evolutionist believes that every LIVING human being was born from another human being."
I did not say what they evolved from. I said who they were BORN from. Since you are a woman, I do not think I need to give a diagram of childbirth to fully illuminate my point. The *they* were explicitly stated to be LIVING human beings. That set does not include anybody who has died, including any ancestors who may have lived 50,000 years ago. *Living* implies present tense, as in TODAY, right now. Anybody with an IQ over their age knows that. Not you. You said I was wrong, then tried to change the subject by talking about the past to hide your error when I showed your mistake. Nice try, no cigar.
"Oh, I just left some words out off that last sentence. Do you UNDERSTAND what they are?"
Yes I do. You are over your head.
"Sorry, but I was talking about the past in 165"
Too bad, I wasn't interested in your questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.