Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The thing is that the Earth isn’t a closed system. It is constantly receiving vast quantities of input energy from the Sun, which plants use to grow, which animals eat—a process that has carried on since the beginning of life on Earth.
However, the total amount of matter organized and energy concentrated by the biosphere is pretty minuscule compared to the total heat output of the Sun, so the second law and evolution don’t really collide. On the larger scale, entropy still wins out big time.
Nice to see you still haven’t changed your greeting style in the past 12 or so months.
“But, But, the sun shining on it should keep it from rotting, since the sun prevents entropy.”
That is a deliberate mischaracterization of what they original poster meant and you know it.
Doesn’t your religion state that the spreading of falsehoods isn’t to be done by followers of said religion?
” the Earth isnt a closed system.”
You are absolutely right. In the final analysis, entropy gets us all. But until the universe dies of heat death, systems will show decreased entropy as they are fed energy from outside.
The smugness of creationists citing the second law of thermodynamics as proof against evolution is hilarious.
Unfortunately, it also shows the damage being done by the Enlightenment’s delayed arrival in America.
The theory of evolution begins where they leave off.
The ID people are making a lot of headway with the "information must come first argument". I try to stay informed and have yet to hear a good argument against that assertion. A lot of hand waving and "just so stories", but nothing you can hang your hat on.
To argue that "specified complex design" precedes "blueprints" defies logic.
Wow, your long list of contradictions between the Bible and evolution is quite compelling. How anyone can look at those contradictions and still believe in the Bible is amazing. Yet apparently some people still do. It’s sad, isn’t it?
[[You provide ZERO evidence to support your claim that it is “too complex”, you just wave your hand and pronounce it so]]
The evidnece to support that claim is seen in 150 years worth of exploring the issue and coming up empty with an answer
[[ToE does not cover the origin on life]]
Actually yeah it does, what it doesn’t put much effort into is how that origin was sparked. Evolution is the study of higher and higher taxonomy- this includes the very first form all the way to present day species
[[”Life is too complex to have simply sprung up from random forces”]]
It’s actually a very good argument and one thta is used in science all the time to determine if objects that are discovered have a designer or not. As you know, natural forces can shape natural objects so that they rawly resemble manmade structures, but noone would mistake a column of rock for the empire state building- The Empire building is much too complex to have randomly been formed by nature- it has the classic tell-tale signs of design
[[What hypothesis are you trying to argue against that says life arose from “a random process” and what is your evidence that this is impossible]]
What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?
coyote said [[You need to talk to the abiogenesis folks about this one. They are still working out the details.]]
And hten says [[You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.]]
And I say, Nah- you folks keep those things- wouldn’t want ot take away the foundations of evolution by taking htose practices from you folk
[[My original question was posed to a specific poster who made specific claims and at this point my question has been takes so out of context that your not even talking about my “philosophical argument”.]]
We’re practicing to become secular scientists- don’t rain on our parade.
[[Yet apparently some people still do. Its sad, isnt it?]]
Yes buckey- so very sad- after all, We’ve so much to lose in life because of it, and so much to lose after life for believing in God- oh wait- no we don’t- so what’s your basic gripe again? Why the obsession with what Christians beleive? Why the constant footstomping? Oh that’s right- God won’t perform miracles on demand for you because you insist His word says what it doesn’t- but alas, keep the fire stoked Buckeye, keep obsessing- it’ll come to such a fruitful ending.
[[The smugness of creationists citing the second law of thermodynamics as proof against evolution is hilarious.]]
Nope- no smugness in that thar statement Mr. St. Humbleman- nope- none whatsoever- nothign to see here- move right along
The "handwaving" metaphor refers to ad hoc explantions that are unconvincing. Similar to the epicycles used to justify the earth centered solar system in Galileo's time.
In the case of the closed universe and the second law the "handwaving" refers to the assertion that the second law is not violated because temporal and isolated areas are not really closed (at least in the short term) and therefore do not violate the second law.
I have yet to see oil created by the wave of one's hands. 8>)
[[There are many cases of speciation in recorded history. Culex molestus is a new species of mosquito that has evolved in modern times from Culex pipiens and is specifically adapted to the London Underground and plants commonly produce new species via polyploidy.
So if your not talking about species (and your not), what are you talking about?]]
Are you suggesting that new subspecies = new KINDS? (Oh yes, I know, I know, you’ll complain “What is KINDS exactly) Loss of information has never resulted in a species moving beyond anything but it’s own KIND- no record of it happening, no examples, no experiments to point to- nothing- we can argue symantics all day long and go round for round, but at hte end of the day- evolution can’t produce one single evidentiary example showing a KIND moving beyond it’s own KIND. We’re all well aware that speciation happens and that species can vary greatly- adaption is a wonderfully marvelous fact- but macroevolution on the other hand is nothing more than aN unsubstantiated, unproven hypothesis
[[Are you claiming lack of evidence (which is utterly false) is evidence?]]
It is a strong indication- funny, you folk use indications all the tiem to make the case for evolution, yet when a strong indication is used to support the fact that something might be unreasonable, all of a sudden it’s not ‘precise enough’ or ‘scientific enough’?
[[Actually, no it doesn’t.]]
Yeah it does- it HAS to if it’s going ot argue everythign has a natural explanation- we’ve been rouind and round this merrygoround of symantics many many times- the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species- Every other hypothesis relies on a completely natural explanation for the beginnings of life.
[[What scientific process are you referring too.]]
Plenty, scientific forensics, geology, medical etc. many fields look for design because design is an intergral part of their study to determine outcomes.
Truth BUMP
[[”What is your objective evidence that it could arise from random process?”
I don’t recall bringing up The Origin of Life, that was the posters choice and I chose to oblige him.]]
Oh but you did bring it up by putting an onus on him that you yourself are unwilling to tackle. The evo model states that it is possible, yet offers no evidnece to show that it is- a simple statement of faith will suffice evidently, yet when it comes to opposing hypothesis that state that what we know from biology and mathematics, makes random processes moving a species higher and higher outside hteir own kinds, we’re immediately put to the task of having to prove it? I’ll answer for him, or in addition to him- Mathematics and biology are the the evidences that it is impossible. Biological investigations have shown quite clear that the only way for NEW infromation, which is needed to move a species beyond it’;s own KIND, if for lateral gene transference to transfere the needed new information from one species KIND to another dissimiliar KIND. The individual species specific gene codes are incapable of creating new organs and systems because hte instructions simply are not present, nor can any alterations create combinations of instructions that could produce non species specific organs or systems- We know it is a biological fact that species can lose organs, lose instructions, and can even, within species specific parameters to the instructions alter information already present, but nothing other than a literal lateral gene transference can introduce NEW non species specific organ/system instructions.
Not that I should have even bothered to respond to that question when your side ducks the same challenge, but there ya go.
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.