Retract this slur, it's false and you know it. I have never "refused to reply".
possibly because they are considered not within the provenance of one's science.
Actually, I've not responded to most of your posts because they are sophomoricaly bombastic, others (e.g. RWP) have done a good job of pointing out most of your errors and fallacies (matters not whether you understand the refutations), and because your response to my post concerning your laughable "exponential growth" argument made it pretty clear that you are either unwilling or unable to understand explanations when they are presented to you.
In short, there are more worthwhile ways I could be spending my limited time.
Ich earlier coredumped lots of links to self-organizing systems,
Those who actually want to learn about the subject will read them and further their education. Those who don't will will find excuses not to.
but did not respond to my analysis of that
See above.
along with point 3 on entropy either. As for my throwaway points in 4, he gave me a government-school analysis of limiting factors and then stopped.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my reply to you. Question: Is this through your lack of understanding, or through your dishonesty? (And then you wonder why I don't bother with most of your posts?)
Like I said I'm doing this for the audience.
Yes, I figured that out a while back. I'm not here to help you perform. I'm here to help those who wish to gain understanding do so. I'm of the opinion that you're not among them.
And I never denied basic obvious, well-documented facts like local entropy decrease in open systems or variability of population growth.
...and then you went RIGHT BACK to your assertions that your flawed "models" (which simplistically LEAVE OUT such factors) are correct enough that they can be seen as "problems" for evolution.
This is ludicrous. Is vastly oversimplifying a model until it becomes grossly incorrect, *then* drawing smug conlusions from it with an attitude of "I've proven something!", in some sort of Creationist Guidebook? Because it seems to be one of their favorite tactics when they're trying to pretend to be "scientific".
"Look, I used math, the answer *must* be irrefutable!", they invariably say...
I repeat what I wrote earlier: Only an idiot would think that an exponential growth curve with a *CONSTANT* growth rate would be in ANY way a valid model of what the human population (or *ANY* population) would actually do over *huge* spans of time (like centuries or millennia, as in your stupid example).
Your model was childishly wrong, and I pointed that out to you. Deal with it. The "conclusions" you subsequently tried to draw from it were thus unsupportable. Deal with it.
The fact that you are now persisting in trying to imply that your population model hasn't been exposed as a sham, and is somehow still useful or valid in any way, makes it entirely clear that you are either too dishonest to admit your error, or too dense to understand it. Neither option inspires confidence.
Rather, when they were brought up, I pointed out the insufficiency of these facts for denying design implications.
Horse crap. No one was trying to "deny design implications", they were pointing out why your attempts to "disprove" some aspect of evolution were "insufficient" in themselves.
Right Wing Professor is emerging as the evo champion, since he's actually making original, intelligent replies.
And good for him. He has more patience with you than I do. I consider you pretty much a complete waste of time. He's still willing to spend time trying to educate you out of your stubborn misconceptions in some manner. I wish him all the luck in the world.
Commonsense (which is on the ascendant against peer-review)
I certainly *hope* not. Peer review is all about providing checks and balances on the pitfalls inherent in trying to use just "common sense" in understanding the universe.
But feel free to start a "Journal of Common-Sense", which accepts submission without peer-review, and see how much useful (or correct) science it produces.
says that the sun increases order on the earth not because of its massive heat but because of the orderly photosynthesis unique to the earth.
Once again, I see that the creationists are having trouble distinguishing between the concepts of "entropy", "order", "information", and "complexity". They are *NOT* the same, but creationists seem to like to use them interchangeably, leading to all sorts of "fall on their face" fallacies. Hint: This is the fundamental reason why the creationist "argument" attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to "disprove" evolution is completely flawed. The SLoT applies to *entropy*. Evolution applies to *information*. The Second Law of Thermodynamics makes *no* restrictions on whether *information* is "allowed" to increase, decrease, or whatever. So the creationists really need to give it a rest.
Once again, some scientists rely on, no, leech on orderliness to get their work done, can spot order in the complex specified ink in the journal, but not in the plant the journal describes,
Oh, puh-leaze... Scientists can (and do) certainly recognize the information, order, and complexity in plants. It's just that unlike the misconceptions of creationists, the scientists know that there are natural means by which those properties can and do arise. There is *no* such thing as a "law of no natural information, order, or complexity increase". On the contrary, it is known (to all but creationists, apparently) that those things can and *do* increase under natural conditions (and also decrease under natural conditions).
ID is about the definition of order as CSI.
No, actually, it isn't. ID is about "I know 'design' when I see it". CSI is one of the arguments they try to use (poorly) to try to formalize their subjective opinion.
Heat entropy has been around long enough that scientists can measure it.
There are laws of "heat entropy" because heat actually behaves by such "rules".
Information entropy is just as real a phenomenon, but there are gut reasons to prevent, no, call nonexistent its publication, and vindication of the legitimate theories of millennia of true scientists before them.
Complete horse manure. There are no laws of "information entropy" because information does *not* behave by the "entropy-like" rules the creationists incorrectly presume it does. Creationists' notions of how information "must" behave are, quite simply, wrong.
The following propositions now seem self-evident.
Translation: You believe them.
They're certainly not "self-evident" in the usual sense, which is "something all will agree on", or "something trivial to demonstrate as true", or the dictionary definition of "evident in itself without proof or demonstration".
I will happily and pompously declare premature victory
Of course you will. That's another thing that seems to be a populat chapter in the Creationist's Handbook...
and hope to respond to further challenges to them.
I'm sure you do.
• A theory is fairly defined as an extant physical model of the universe.
Hopelessly muddled, and far too restrictive. For example, theories usually deal with some class of phenomena -- they do not attempt to "model the universe" as a whole. Try something along the lines of: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".
• The universe is, by this definition, also a theory unto itself.
Complete horsecrap, even by your own definition. A theory is a conceptual model, which has explanatory and predictive power. The universe itself is neither a conceptual model nor does it explain or predict itself.
• Theories are, by this definition, fair subjects of science or knowledge.
*That* one I can agree with.
• Nothing can be posited about the unknowable, not even its existence or nonexistence.
Hell, anything can be "posited" about anything. What have you been smoking?
• Entropy cannot decrease in any timeslice of the universe itself.
If you mean as measured across the universe as a whole, you're probably right. If you mean in any particular localized portion of it, you are incorrect.
The next things people want to know about are: 1) Why is information entropy isomorphic to heat entropy (1038)?
It isn't.
2) Minor questions of WildTurkey about my equation cite (1044).
Don't care.
3) The speed of light (1062).
My money's on Einstein.