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The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History has withdrawn its co-sponsorship of a showing later this month of a film that supports the theory of "intelligent design."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 ...
This is applicable only if no new energy is being introduced into the system. The sun provides us with enough energy to 'organize' quite well, while it suffers entropy in our place.
"Bio systems do not become more ordered over time and actually dissipate in order and there is a decline in both potential and kinetic energies. "
This is why a zygote develops into a living human, right?
This 2LoT lie is one of the oldest and most frequently refuted creationist arguments out there. Even AiG suggests creationists not use it.
QUOTE from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
The idea of self-organization challenges an earlier paradigm of ever-decreasing order which was based on a philosophical generalization from the second law of thermodynamics. However, at the microscopic or local level, the two need not be in contradiction: it is possible for a system to reduce its entropy by transferring it to its environment.
In open systems, it is the flow of matter and energy through the system that allows the system to self-organize, and to exchange entropy with the environment. This is the basis of the theory of dissipative structures. Ilya Prigogine noted that self-organization can only occur far away from thermodynamic equilibrium.
It would appear that, since isolated systems cannot decrease their entropy, only open systems can exhibit self-organization. However, a closed system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy. Specifically, a few of the system's macroscopic degrees of freedom can become more ordered at the expense of microscopic disorder.
"In other words chemicals do not become more organized.
Chemical bonds do not form to create larger more complex molecules?
QUOTE from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly
Molecular self-assembly is the assembly of molecules without guidance or management from an outside source. There are two types of self-assembly, intramolecular self-assembly and intermolecular self-assembly, although in some books and articles the term self-assembly refers only to intermolecular self-assembly. Intramolecular self-assembling molecules are often complex polymers with the ability to assemble from the random coil conformation into a well-defined stable structure (secondary and tertiary structure). An example of intramolecular self-assembly is protein folding. Intermolecular self-assembly is the ability of molecules to form supramolecular assemblies (quarternary structure). A simple example is the formation of a micelle by surfactant molecules in solution.
QUOTE from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction
A chemical reaction is a process involving one, two or more substances (called reactants), characterized by a chemical change and yielding one or more product(s) which are different from the reactants. A chemical change is defined as molecules attaching to each other to form larger molecules, molecules breaking apart to form two, or more, smaller molecules, or rearrangement of atoms within molecules. In order to make the refered transformations possible, chemical reactions usually involve the making or breaking of chemical bonds. An important aspect of the definition is that a chemical reaction does not change the nucleus of the atom in any way, only the interaction of the electron clouds of the involved atoms
"They become more disorganized. Evolution in order to be a fact must prove that chemicals on their own become complex and organized on a randomn pattern without external input"
Done.
Thanks for the ping!
No, I answered the ridiculous assertions the web site you quoted (without attribution I might add) put forward as truth and I answered the condition you made. If anyone is equivocating it is you and other creationists who insist on conflating abiogenesis and evolution.
Either show a cite for the Crick statement or retract it.
"Take all the chemicals you need to make a cell, put it together it does not make a living cell."
Who ever said they did? All that is necessary for beginnings is a replicator and natural selection. The beginnings of life did not need to be a cell.
Is a prion a cell?
Is a virus a cell?
Which one is alive?
"The desire to believe a lie will always outweigh believing the truth. Evolution is a lie."
Evolution is a lie? You know nothing about it except it puts your faith in jeopardy and you feel qualified to judge it a lie?
"Even the Nazis knew that if a lie is repeated it becomes the truth. Evolutionists rely on double speak and the persistent denial of the scientific truth."
Why did you mention Nazis? What does science have to do with them? Sounds like you are trying to poison the well.
Science, including evolutionary scientists, put forward hypotheses that are then tested, falsified if possible, and either accepted or rejected based on a methodology. Nowhere in that sequence is there a requirement for double speak.
"That is why evolution is actually a religion. Why? Because you have no proof and evolution requires a step in faith aka believing the unseen."
Evolution, not abiogenesis, is a fact, we see it in action every day. The ToE has successfully defended (in scientific terms) itself against many attempts to falsify it. No matter how hard you pray that it isn't true, it has the weight of years of scientific research behind it.
"There are people that will not believe in a creator no matter what evidence is given and that is allowed. But I persist in saying show me the proof that a non living batch of chemicals can be made into a living thing."
If that is your problem, then argue with those involved in the research into abiogenesis. I have already shown you that many things can self-organise. Although I didn't present it, many things can self-replicate.
Just because we haven't succeeded in determining how life started does not mean we will ultimately fail. There are many things you have not done yet. Does this preclude you from doing them?
"If this can be shown to me then I will give up my God for I know he is not the creator but a created myth. But the fact is every time we develop more technology and increase the knowledge of true science-the theory of evolution becomes more and more a religious faith."
I'm sure that is what you have been told, but the reverse is true. Every day new insights and discoveries are being made that add to the enormous wealth of evidence for the ToE and more observations of evolution in action are documented.
I don't know anything about them being "godless," but they are arrogant and think that anything they want should be theirs. They want to OWN all history and to store it somewhere where others can only access it when the institute deems they are worthy.
Although their magazine has lovely pictures, I have no respect for the Smithsonian.
In his June 3 newsletter, Randi attempted to downplay his "counter-bribe" of $20,000 as an attempt to squelch free speech and admitted that his campaign "looked like an attempt to suppress free expression of an opinion, which would never be our intention," but he remained undaunted in the face of the film not being cancelled.
LOL! I guess that is one way to make something that makes you uncomfortable go away.
from (8), The theory that Randi considered in offering 20K to have yanked (you know, one of your open debate peers).
That doesn't answer my question. What is the "theory"? State it. Justify calling it a "theory" by showing that it meets the criteria of "theory".
It certainly does answer it - a 20,000 dollar answer (unless you are giving one of the typical WOD threads responses where you keep trying to shift the debate). I know many would like to pretend that this attempted bribe by Randi didn't happen.
It sure as hell (oops!) is - that theory that Randi "ponied up" 20,000 to have banned at the Smithsonian. Sounds like you haven't RTFT. Maybe I should hook you up with Randi.
Don't zygotes require external energy in order to grow? If a pregnant woman stops eating, a linebacker is unlikely to show up in 22 years. We start dying the moment we begin to live, since all cells eventually break down. The 2LoTD is a universal law, isn't it? Doesn't that mean it works under any circumstance, as far as we have been able to observe? Or does evolution trump the laws of the universe? How does it not pertain to cells, if it pertains to everything else that cells make up?
Not that your or anyone else's quotes aren't on the up-and-up, but Wikipedia isn't original source material, since anyone can edit at will.
And if one finds Darwinism a little more philosophical than scientific, forget even discussing that aspect with due consideration.
|
HMMmmm..........
Not the CONTENT????
Or just maybe....
That must be the polite way of saying: "It makes claims that even EVOLUTION's 'evidence' can't answer, and that's where we part ways with them."
My point was that the church then, and science now, have taken on the same role of stifling new thought.
Galileo wasn't burned at the stake. Nor has the church burned anyone for herrasy in the last few hundred years. I dare say though, that had the NSF existed 500 years ago, that is exactly what they would have done.
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.