Posted on 03/07/2006 5:06:11 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
SEATTLE, March 7 (UPI) -- A poll by Zogby International reportedly shows most Americans support public school teachers presenting evolution and intelligent design theories.
The sun is not delivering much information at all, just random heat. When we consider the second law, only wrt/ thermodynamic heat, sure. With regard to (WRT/) information the jury is out -- and it is leaning strongly against the information rich system we have become.
The only point that now hangs the jury seems to be achieving something more than an intuitive definition of "information".
(If you want I have a nifty example I'll post, I least I think it is nifty.)
It most certainly does.
And I am not shifting goal posts, the whole point is that a single simple chemical reaction which produces a more "complex" chemical is not life. Life is a tremendously complex arrangement of chemical reactions, involving non-spontaneous reactions. If the spontaneous reactions are observed in this complex arrangement, we call that death.
Nope, you're trying to change the topic. The original assertion by the original poster was that the Second Law demands that light always break down molecules and never build them up. That assertion has been refuted.
As for your second assertion, you're operating from the argument from personal incredulity again.
OK. So what? Answer the questions I asked you. I can flip the switch on a refrigerator and produce cold in a hot environment.
What second assertion involving personal incredulity? That life is a complex arrangement of chemical reactions? Or that living things die?
In #131 you said the following,
“Most evolutionists spend an inordinate time trying to undermine religion [interesting that you then go on to call “me” paranoid] with so called "science". Mr Hawkins being a current example. My engineering and science professors at Purdue did not feel the need to be so constrained to so called "scientific" definitions such as the one you provided and it made for both good discussion and deep contemplation.”You misunderstood #148 when I characterized your wanting ID in science to “two wrongs make a right” after your experience with leftist evangelism at Perdue. Evangelical meant zealous promotion of an ideology, not “Christian”. I tried to clarify that in #169 when you expressed confusion, but if you don’t know that evangelical has a secular definition, I guess that still wouldn’t mean anything. You apparently still though I was accusing Christians of evangelizing in college. On the contrary, Christians are underrepresented in Education. That should be adjusted, but not by teaching it as a science in science class.
Regarding your paranoia accusation being disingenuous, I guess I’m wrong. We’re just having a communication problem.. Regarding you being disingenuous otherwise, I’m aware of the common debate technique to repeat an awkwardly nice phrase in each post to throw off your opponent. But you post “warmest regards”, “sweet dreams” and call me “dear”, in posts accusing me of dishonesty, paranoia and cowardliness.
#160 Honestly you are trying to split hairs just to get your way.
#174 I don't know what or where you have studied, but your point is pure speculation at best and down right paranoid at worst.
#176 It was becoming more and more difficult trying to understand and respond to your unsubstantiated paranoia.
#194 Look if you feel that you can not talk about God in the science classroom because you are going to be made fun of, then OK,
#198 These are simply your own paranoid fears.
Discussion styles can either be reasonable and friendly or they can be condescending and insulting. If you repeatedly try both in the same posts, it’s either disingenuous or weird.
Regards,
Bill
So much for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Looks like you’re just a nut.
You basically said that although one type of reaction may proceed in the presence of light, you don't see how any number of chemical reactions could produce in the end a living system. That's the argument from personal incredulity, demonstrated when someone states disbelief in something because he doesn't understand or cannot imagine how it could be true. There's nothing particularly wrong with this. However, one's incredulity doesn't count as proof. You might not be able to imagine how a living system might arise by aggregation of various molecules and gradual modifications. However, there are a lot of people who can imagine it. Does this constitute proof on either side? Nope. The best we can do is go looking for evidence that it might be plausible or implausible. The field of "prebiotic evolution" is providing evidence that it's not so implausible as all that.
All of which is not really relevant to the theory of evolution itself. The theory of evolution concerns itself with heritable changes in the genetic material, not how the genetic material got there in the first place. Interestingly there are plenty of theistic evolutionists who believe that God made the first living cell and sent it on its way, while there are others who believe God engineered the process of abiogenesis and subsequent evolution like he engineers the weather--steering everything to produce the desired result, but typically not interfering in any way that breaks the laws of nature.
Fiddling with my screen name and obscuring insults doesn’t make your facade of “warmest regards” any less disingenuous or weird. But apparently nutty evasion is all that’s left of you when your argument is refuted. It doesn’t reflect well on you.
The more to write, the more you reinforce that you’re bankrupt of anything substantive, reduced to goofy little evasions and posturing. You’re just acting like a fool. Keep up the good work…
The really evil thing about the argument from incredulity is that it suggests we should not look for natural cuses.
Some anti-evolution posters phrase this as a concern for tax dollars wasted. Others fall back on the assertion that the assumption of natural causes is blasphemy.
This is the real nut of the case. The attempt to shut down inquiry. Just cheerleading for one outcome is no problem in my mind.
You seem to be blind to the statement along with it. We do observe death. That is evidence.
Rams have horns and there are horses. That does not mean I have to accept unicorns.
You appear incoherent. What is "prebiotic evolution" if is is not evolution, despite your later attempt at a distinction to another type of evolution? Your definition of implausibility seems to me, implausible.
Finally, despite your off-handed personal incredulity comment, I do understand the topic and I can imagine the complex chemical reactions. It is called life.
No, you're just illiterate. I don't know why I bother!
An Inigo Montoya moment.
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.