The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [11th Revision]

Free Republic, et al | 2001-12-10 | Junior, et al.

[Junior]

Time for an update ...

[Junior]

Bump.

[Kyrie]

We will serve no update before its time.

(Sound of alarm clock ringing)

It's time!

I'm not sure why, but since 9/11 I don't have as much interest in these debates as I once had. But please! go ahead and have fun.

The thing I like best about these debates is that everyone wins. Don't believe me? Just ask them!

But has anyone ever changed any of his/her beliefs because of reading one of these "winning" arguments?

[Elsie]

I agree. I was being to think we were all at a C vs E conference at WTC on 9/11 and there were no more of us bandwidth thieves left!

---

Unless some new players show up, I'm tired...........

[Elsie]

BEGINING

---

(I told you I was tired!)

[Dimensio]

But has anyone ever changed any of his/her beliefs because of reading one of these "winning" arguments?

I've heard of some creationists, after intense scrutiny of the evidence and reevaulation of common creationist arguments in light of common refutations of those arguments, have come to reconsider their creationist stance and accept that evolution is in fact the best explanation that fits the existing evidence. Don't have any names offhand and I'm speaking of USENET, not anything I've seen here.

I'm not sure that I've heard of it coming the other way 'round, but I wouldn't be surprised. Still, it's probably a smaller number.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I've learned a lot about the Creationist position and why they feel the way they do. I also recognize a lot of the behaviors that they see amongst the biologists I work with. I didn't pay any attention to the biologists previously because I looked down on them so much (hard science bias showing).

[nimdoc]

You are obviously under-employed.
Way too much time on your hands.

An idle mind is the devil’s workshop and this post is prime example.

[Junior]

An idle mind is the devil’s workshop and this post is prime example.

My dear friend, if this thread is the result of an idle mind, can you imagine the damage I could do if I simply put some effort into it?

[nimdoc]

May the Saints preserve us!

[nasamn777]

Would you describe yourself as openminded in regards to the Creation/Evolution debate? I think not. Tell me what is the Creationists position concerning the 2nd Law? Don't give me links but write it yourself. What is the validity of their argument? How is it weak? How is it strong?

[nasamn777]

The links look like a bunch of propaganda to me!

[Junior]

Would you describe yourself as openminded in regards to the Creation/Evolution debate? I think not. Tell me what is the Creationists position concerning the 2nd Law? Don't give me links but write it yourself. What is the validity of their argument? How is it weak? How is it strong?

Nope. I'm strictly an evolutionist. This does not mean I don't believe in God (I do), it simply means that Biblical creationism has done nothing to explain the evidence, while evolution, even though an incomplete theory, comes closest to accounting for everything we see around us. Sometimes being "open minded" is synonymous with having a hole in one's head. Or, to borrow heavily from Rush Limbaugh, being open minded on the creation vs. evolution debate is a bit like being a "moderate" -- neither hot nor cold, pro nor con; existing in a state of eternal limbo ...

Note, however, that the Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource contains pro-creationist websites (at least those I was able to find or which have been posted by others -- if you have any that are not present here, please post them and I will include them). This is because I believe the surest way to victory is to know your opponent's position as well as he does, and nothing is gained by hiding information or falsely representing the opposition.

As for the 2LoTD, the average creationist invokes this to refute the possibility that complex life can arise from simpler life -- the 2LoTD is the "entropy" law that everything is tending toward thermal equilibrium (entropy). Unfortunately, the average creationist fails to take into account that the 2LoTD only covers closed systems. The biosphere of Earth is an open system, receiving energy from outside (the Sun). Additionally, if the creationist view of the 2LoTD was correct, organisms could not perform the basic biochemical processes required to exist, nor could fetal organisms grow into adults, crystals could not form in solution, etc.

[Junior]

Some are actually fairly science-intensive. You can't have read all of the several hundred sites listed.

[HENRYADAMS]

An amazing amount of work. A virtual WWW library!

[Junior]

BTW, there is a 12th Revision available. In the latest version, I've included the complete creation story from the Bible (Gen 1 & 2 -- taken from the online Blue-Letter Bible) as that is a more handy reference than "God did it, 'nuff said."

[SpookBrat]

"God did it, 'nuff said."

Works for me. :)

[nasamn777]

You say the following:

"As for the 2LoTD, the average creationist invokes this to refute the possibility that complex life can arise from simpler life -- the 2LoTD is the "entropy" law that everything is tending toward thermal equilibrium (entropy). Unfortunately, the average creationist fails to take into account that the 2LoTD only covers closed systems."

This is your first mistake. Scientifically speaking, the 2nd Law is applicable to open sytems. This common statement shows the ignorance that many have concerning the 2nd law. These same people claim to know something about thermodynamics. Please explain to me why I should believe anything you say if you can't get this one correct?

"The biosphere of Earth is an open system,receiving energy from outside (the Sun)."

Standard terminology of thermodynamics would describe the system as closed. This means that energy can transfer into the system or out of the system but the mass stays the same (except for an occassional rocket:)). Now just because we have energy transfer into the sytem does not mean that we will see increased order (decreased entropy). For example, energy hits rocks and typically flows from a hot surface to a cold surface without increasing order. You need a thermodynamic mechanism to convert the energy to useful work where order is increased.

"Additionally, if the creationist view of the 2LoTD was correct, organisms could not perform the basic biochemical processes required to exist, nor could fetal organisms grow into adults, crystals could not form in solution, etc."

Here again is propaganda used by evolutionists to confuse the issue. The first point is the biochemical processes and development of organisms. Life has the thermodynamic mechanism to convert energy into complex systems with added order. Let us take the developement of a human as an example. Here you have the DNA which contains all the instructions needed to carry out the processes and assemble a human. The mothers womb and body act as part of the mechanism as well as the cell that contains the DNA. Energy from the mother is converted to work used to form the complex systems associated with the newborn baby. The mechanism contains every precise instruction of the process.

The next point is the crystal growth. This is a good example of a smoke screen because the system is going toward equilibrium and not away from equilibrium as we see in the development of life. It is like saying the following:

"If a ball will roll down hill on its own, it should roll up hill on its own."

Again, I would have to say that this shows a lack of credibility on the part of evolutionists! Why should evolutionists have to distort the arguments if evolution is such a sound theory?

The problem with evolution is the lack of a thermodynamic mechanism that has all the intricate systems available to construct complex new systems of increased order.

[nasamn777]

I like Rush a lot and listen to him regularly, but let me remind you that he is no scientist!

[nasamn777]

Rush should know better. He regularly comments on how the environmental wackos (many of them are scientists) distort the issues and the science. He talks about the global warming and again complains about the scientists. He even had a caller who was some physicist who said that a nuclear strike would not distroy the world as many scientists claim. Rush again attacked the scientists. Rush should understand that bias among scientists does exist and that the view that evolution is a "done deal" may not be accurate.

I have nothing against scientists, but I do know they are human and can be swayed by the bandwagon and personal bias. I have found many vocal advocates of evolution carrying some personal grudge. Traditional Christians do have a controversial message that they spread. They claim that God does exist and has an active role in creation. They claim that mankind has a sinful nature that separates him from God. This will result in God's judgement, which is eternal hell. God has, however, sent his son Jesus into the world to take away the judgement of God if people will turn to him, live their lives for him and confess their sin. I don't mean to be long winded but my point is that many find this message distasteful. They would put up any other belief system in order to get around this message -- especially when they are living in direct violation of the Bible. If you examine those who put up the web pages, many of them are atheists, homosexuals and others who find traditional Christianity offensive.

Now I am sure that you will claim that I am biased. Sure, I may be to some extent, but then all are biased. This is the "saving grace" of science. There is a diversity of views (except for the issue of evolution) that challenges our personal bias. The problem today is that evolutionists are trying to exterminate any opposition to the mainstream thinking. I find this harmful for science. Sure, many may find Creationism (and ID folks) objectionable, but our presence will only help evolutionists perform their jobs better by forcing them to critically evaluate their assumptions.