Posted on 01/17/2008 10:27:05 AM PST by neverdem
They never said it was ‘proof’ for hte flood- AND they used Many many more samples than your book- your post does absolutely Zero to undermine what was said- nothign is ‘undermined’ OR a ‘major misrepresentation’- If you have evidence to counter his model, then present it- otherwise his annalysis based on his model is entirely relevent. If you can prove htere was no flood- only then do you have a valid counterargument- until then you got nothing but biased exclusionary OPINION-
This evolution “science” stuff really cracks me up. They try so hard to support their religious beliefs, but they carefully avoid learning anything about science or observing the facts-. And it shows.
==So your contention is that in such a carbon-rich environment, plants and animals would have more carbon—specifically, C12—in them to begin with? Do you have any evidence that that actually happens?
They already calibrate radiometric dates based on known carbon fluctuations due to atmospheric changes, etc.
[[You are claiming your confusion of fauna and flora was a typo?]]
I am statign that I thought Flora and typed Fauna by mistake- I’m sure that has never happened to you as evidently you are perfect and mental ggaffs like thta never happen.
[[This was at least the third time you made the same typo. I’m betting you had to look it up after you realized we were making fun of you.]]
Keep going spanky- your petty ignorant character assasinations is speaking volumes
[[Any claim against evolution based on thermodynamics reveals a profound misunderstanding of physics. Your Answers In Genesis has reluctantly come to this conclusion. They appear to have some standards beneath which even they prefer not to drop]]
I see you are a glutton for punishement- so let me oblige. Let’s start with admissions from reputable scientists who aren’t ignorant enough to think simplistic models of negative entropy could EVER hope to produce trillions of ever increasing specified complexities, and let’s also point out that no reputable scientist would EVER propose the ignorant hypothesis that Steiger proposed in his TO article:
“[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of it basic concepts will never be overthrown.”
[Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Universe”, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509 and in Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.]
“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.”
[Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.]
“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.”
[Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.]
“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.”
[G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.]
“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.”
[A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.]
LOL.
>> They already calibrate radiometric dates based on known carbon fluctuations due to atmospheric changes, etc.
Yes—based on fluctuations *in the atmosphere* that affect the amount of *C14* present. You’re arguing that the amount of carbon buried in the soil affects the results, because (presumably) plants growing in carbon-rich soil will absorb more carbon. I ask again, do you have any evidence that actually happens? Or do I misunderstand your argument?
Sorry, not profound, and not even a misunderstanding. While it is possible to have a small part of a initially disordered dynamic system become ordered with the addition of external energy, or even for small parts of an initially disordered dynamic system for a small time appear to have an order --the whole of the system is still disordered and is strongly defiant to establishing anything but small, short, appearances of order, UNLESS an intelligent actor acts upon the system to direct the energy in some designed manner.
That is designer-free evolution of a disordered system into an ordered one under the application of disordered external energy produces in the monumentally overwhelming majority of of possible outcome states -- MORE appearance of disorder and not less.
As usual, designer-free ideologues (DFers) confound the possible and the probable, and what is the most unlikely they conflate into the only possible outcome.
see the last.
laugh all you want over a non issue qwhile ignoring them ore complex issues being discussed- I expect notrhign short of childishness for your defense on the issues. Typical DarwinCentral kiddie tactics.
More Entropy goodness:
“The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).”
Steiger mounts a rediculous argument for negative entropy and the possibility of macroevolution in an ‘opne system’ by pointing to what? Specified complexity? Nope- by pointing to simplistic crystaline patterns
“Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.
On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:
“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’”
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]”
“Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.”
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]
Steiger’s blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a willful misrepresentation of the facts.”
Lol- Poor Steiger-
exactly BVW- and this is readily explained by Timothy to Mr Steiger, who insists that 3 staacked blocks in a junkyard by an outside enery source is proof enough that increasingly complex biological systems ‘could happen’ in violation of hte second law in an open system.
For JS=- here’s thel ink- perhaps you should bone up a bit on this page and udnerstand the rediculousness of Steiger’s position before I post the link to discussion Steiger and Wallace had where Steiger ran away whining about Wallace.
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
That's pure bullshit, unless you are willing to classify the laws of chemistry as intelligent actors.
What the heck do you think plants do with solar energy? What do microbes and fungi do with chemical energy?
Evolution is not something magic outside the realm of living systems. Evolution is no more magic than metabolism.
[[Wrong again. The only assumption was that things happened in the past more or less the same way they happen now. They didn’t have preconceptions about how old the rocks should be; they formed a hypothesis about their ages based on observations]]
And made the determination upon what again? Upon observation with present day erosion rates, AND- upon assumptions about how old the strata must be based on what they assume to be a constant-
[[you know, that science stuff.]]
Yeah, Yeah, the ‘science stuff’, rife with preconceptions- just as the article states- you’re talking in circles and stating exactly what hte articvle stated- When they dug down, they based their opinions on erosion rates and said “This is how old they ‘should be” - the ‘should be’ was STILL the criteria for their annalysis and determinations- preconcieved notions based on assumptions- nothign more.
[[What the heck do you think plants do with solar energy? What do microbes and fungi do with chemical energy?]]
Lol- upon germination, they begin a process of entropy that follows the law perfectly. Every effort to thrive results in entropy that affects the plant at soem level and eventually leads to the law abiding death of hte plant.
[[Evolution is not something magic outside the realm of living systems.]]
Sure it is, when it not only overcomes biological impossibilites at every step of hte way, but somehow ALSO overcame the second law at trillions of ever icnreasingly complex steps of order and assembly. David Copperfield majic at that. How’s sicence doing with that “Turn amino acids into protiens” with no instructions testing going these days? The whole system breaks down even fro mthe very beginning. The ‘creation’ of Amino acids i nthe lab produced not only an equal number of left and right handed amino acids (which would render ANY further possibility of Macroevolution impossible), but they had to very carefulyl isolate the energy fro mthe amino acids because hte raw energy used i nthe creation of the acids would have completely destroyed the acids- so evidently, after amino acids were spontaniously created in nature from chemicals, somehow, they were carefully isolated from both the wrong type amino acids, AND from the energy that created them, then they made the biologicsally impossible leap to Protiens, and so on and so forth-
Not magic? Ok- whatever.
There were two events listed in Scripture that indicate a change of condition in the universe or planet, one was the Fall, where corruption entered, and other was the Flood.
If you want to think that God did it for the sole purpose of deceiving man, then by all means you’re free to do so. But to attribute motives to Him where there is no justification for it is just fairy tales, the stuff so many evos like to use to condemn people who don’t believe them.
A change in condition is just that, a change. It happened. If you’re going to get into appearance and all, then tell me, just how old would scientists say Adam was on the day he was created as a full grown man?
Any Christian who believes the Bible would say less than a day and the evos/scientists would laugh themselves silly when obviously he was ___ years old. (say thirty for the sake of argument), but tell me then, who is right?
Adam wasn’t created a full grown man, with the appearance of age, for the purposes of deceit, but practicality and usefulness. The same can apply to the universe. If life as we know it can only exist in certain, specific conditions, then the universe would have to be created to accommodate that life and if it has the appearance of age, that’s just incidental, just as Adam having the appearance of age is incidental.
If I were to prepare a house for someone to live in, completely furnished, with even a hot meal ready to eat and leftovers for later, it would be a matter of courtesy and convenience for the guest, not to deceive him into thinking that someone else had lived there before.
So tell me.... How old was Adam the day he was created a full grown man?
You'd think that with the decades of indoctrination in the public school system and monopoly that the ToE has had in being taught in the classroom, that it would have sunk in by now.
The reason that it hasn't established itself securely in the public mind is that most people have the sense to realize that something as complex as the universe and the life contained within, is far less likely to have just happened than to be made. And the more we learn, the more complex we find it to be, far more than any thought of years ago. The more complex, the less likely to have happened by chance. If it didn't happen by chance, it had to have happened on purpose.
The brainwashing is failing, plain and simple.
Flora and fauna are designed chemical machines. Therefore they create order because of their design. Works pretty well too! Extremely efficient chemical cycles!
Ignoring those things that never die, which includes most living things by whatever measure you care to choose -- quantity, biomass, variety.
let’s discuss the plants- are you suggesting photsynthesis shows that Macroevolution could have violated the law?
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.