|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:01:51 PM | "Even though there is just as much logical evidence to support creationism , and disprove evolutionism . as there is to say the opposite"
To use your argument- that depends how you define evidence. If you define anecdotal accounts, circular reasoning, mistatement of fact, misrepresentation of evolution as evidence than yes. But there is not scientific evidence of creationism. You can claim that you prefer other forms of reasoning, be it faith or poetry, to science, but when you try to claim that the two are scientifially congruent, you are flat out wrong.
"The one difference between creationism and evolutionism ,is that those who ultimately believe in creationism , don't need to keep proving their point , because of faith."
And here you yourself make my point. One is science, the other is faith.
"Alot of those who try to prove evolutionism have to keep trying to come up with different theories to prove a point"
This statement only shows that you haven't read or understood a thing said in rebuttal to your posts. Saying the same thing in different words after the flaw in reasoning has already been pointed out does not constitue a legitimate argument. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:09:14 PM | wonka...I posted a lengthy piece a few postings back, concerning the open vs. closed system, regarding the Second law...stop beating a dead horse...But, here it is again, to save you the search:
"The usual approach to escape the conclusions of the second law as it applies to the early evolution of life is to claim that the second law is not applicable to the problem since the earth is an "open" system. Thermodynamics was developed using chemical and mechanical systems which were prevented from either gaining or losing energy or matter from the external world. The earth is receiving energy from the sun all the time and therfore it is claimed that the chemical evolution of life could occur.
Time magazine, criticizing the creationist position on the second law, states:
"In 1977 Ilya Prigogine, A Russian born professor at the Free University of Brussels, won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving that the second law does not apply to 'open systems' such as living creatures, because living things can aquire new energy. Plants grow healthy by soaking up sunlight, even though the sun, the source of the solar system's energy, is slowly burning out."
This work of Prigogine's applies only to living systems as they are presently structured.
Photosynthesis is the process by which a plant captures energy from the sun and stores this energy in the form of chemical bonds. When we eat the plant, our bodies utilize the energy to grow bigger and to maintain our present types of body structure. The chloroplast is like the motor which captures and directs the sun's energy towards useful work. Burning gasoline does not produce useful work unless there is a mechanism which directs the energy in the proper direction. That function is accomplished by the engine in a car.
When referring to the chemical origin of life, however, we are talking about a time 'before' the chloroplast was made; a time before there was a machine which captured, stored and directed the solar energy toward the manufacture of complex chemical compounds. It doesn't matter whether the earth is "open" or "closed" as a system since, without a machine to direct the energy, the chemical evolution of life cannot utilize the solar energy.
Thus as far as chemicals are concerned, they could just as well be in a closed system, surrounded by solar energy, but with no way to use it. It is much like being on a raft in the ocean with no fresh water. There is water everywhere but not a drop to drink.
As George Wald noted:
"What we ask here is to synthisize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us--the weakest link in our argument. I do not think it by any means disastrous, but it calls for phenomena and forces some of which are as yet only partly understood and probably still to be discovered."
Even in an "open system" Prigogine had reservations about the origin of life.
He writes:
"The point is that in a non-isolated 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 the phenomena of phase transistions.
Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly imporbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occured."
The most he said was that he hoped his studies might someday lead to a solution of the problem of the origin of life from non-life. But he acknowledged that we are nowhere near such a solution. He showed that in certain liquid systems, a highly "dissipative" environment might some kind of "structure" in one corner of that environment (e.g., vortices in a rapidly heating coffee pot)
However, this has been known for a long time, and in no way proves that living systems might emerge from non-living systems simply by placing them in a rapidly dissipating energy milieu.
The very real conflict conflict between evolution and the second law (in open as well as closed systems) is nowhere to being solved. Even if it WERE solved in the future, the evolution model still wuld not be as good as the creation model. That is, at best, the evolution model might possibly someday be able to "explain" the second law in an evolutionary context, but the creation model PREDICTS it!"
ta da.... | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:12:44 PM | | And your post was responded to and debunked by numerous other posters, so why are you beating a dead horse? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:15:09 PM | again ot is all perspective.
No it isn't. There actually is a real physical world that exists independantly of our subjective "perspectives" of it. Science is the best means to understand it in objective terms. Science, unlike creationism, doesn't start with an absolute belief and then collect evidence and build arguments to prove it, though it obviously seems like some people on here have difficulty understanding that distinction.
CR, an open system doesn't mean that you can accept any idea at all no matter how unfounded it is. Also, the more colorful prose and length a person uses in his or her argument does not determine that argument is more sound logically or has more of a basis in fact than another argument. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:25:54 PM |
The one difference between creationism and evolutionism ,is that those who ultimately believe in creationism , don't need to keep proving their point , because of faith. Alot of those who try to prove evolutionism have to keep trying to come up with different theories to prove a point , where as those who believe in creationism ,believe it is unecessary to do such , because they already know how to interpret the real truth. But it would take a far greater man than I to explain "faith" to those who choose to not understand it , and deny it.
What a crock of......
Evolutionists do not nead to keep defending evolution, I am willing to accept any viable alternative, but none has been presented. Eveloutionists do not keep changing theories, we have one theory that has been tweeked on accasion to take into acount the new facts that have been presented (genetics for example) but the theory is still founded on the exact same princaples. Evolutionsits dop not have to keep coming up with difrent theories, we use the theory of evolution, what other theories have we come up with? The only reason we are constantly having to EXPLAIN the theory of evolution is because those who are to cowerdly to accept its truth  are constantly attacking it, trying to undermine and disprove it because it threatens them.
basics or reasons , how you interpret them to be , so they make sense to you. About the above mentioned comment, The same can be said about your argument . perspective ...perspective ...perspective, did I mentionit is a matter of perspective, and how we each interpret what we believe to be facts, since ther is NO absolutes
About what argument?
And your right, it is about how we interprate the facts, but that dosent stop you from being wrong in your interprations though dose it?
Scientific methOdolgy? bas_ed on theories? Like all of the evoltionists used who ultimately became creationists? again ot is all perspective.
No, scientific methadology is a system for gathering and interprating data that removes it from personal perspective. This is why we write in the third person when writing up a report of an experiment.
The model is still subjective. It is more of an analogy , than a tool to prove fact. There are variables in the model that don't coincide with the absolute. A model is at best , a tool to make a vague comparison.
No (I say this quite a lot when corecting you... i wonder why?) what I wrote was an anology of a model. The Ice itself is perfectly valid model, it can show the princaples behind a function, and alows us to test and predict what would happen if we changed variables or altered the other parameters. Can use the Ice cubes to show that salt in acid rain will only disolve the top of the ice (Asuming, I havent yet tried the experiment, but may do now) and then anote that to the way in which glacial ice is damaged by Acid rain. I can use the model to make predictions such as if more rain falls, ice will melt faster, and then test those predictions. I can use the Ice to prove or disprove a hypothesis, showing the facts of the hypothesis by experimentation. If I take ice and put salt on the top of it it will melt from the top down, that is the fact gleened from the model, (or may be when I actualy try the experiment out) I can use that fact from the model to the Glacial Ice, If I pour acid rain on glacial ice, it will melt from the top down. there is no vague comaparison there.
Finaly.. I can use that Ice, to cool my whiskey cause I'm off to bed to rest my waery head. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:38:52 PM | wonka...no, a few huffed and puffed about you and I waging a war of words, and other related topics, but I do not see where any have responded to the specific information I posted, regarding the open vs. closed system & the Second law of Thermodynamics, in this thread...
Then again, I have been laughing so much at some of the postings, perhaps I may have missed the ones you speak of? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:40:06 PM | If you are seriously trying to sugest that highly structured and organised systems such as organic compounds, require an input of energy to form... then I have to point out to you that your wrong.
Crystals require the net LOSS of energy to form, crystals are highly organised and structured and complec molecules, and guess what, many of the organic comounds are crystaline in nature (all of the sugars and salts that are esential for the formation of protiens.).
So the second law of thermo dynamics would not be borken by the formation of complex life as to do so there must be a net loss of energy to form the compounds that make up life. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:50:10 PM | Oh yes, and even before the development of cloroplasts in plant cells, life derived energy from the sun. Te sun provides heat as well as light and heat is essential for some ot the reacions to ocour n the formation of life.
This is not against the second law of thermo dynamics OR agaisnt entropy (what you were actualy refering too) as, even with the addition of energy from the sun to provide enougth energy ofr chemicals to react together, there is still net loss of energy in the sytem. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:00:42 PM | uhmmm...
Can you learn how to SPELL? (ENGLISH?) 
"bekawse eet seems lake ew dun neew how tew reeb er rite reel gud, ann maanee peepul heer r mur edukated eet seems den eww."
I was quoting Evolutionsists, which have the problems solving the dilema of the Second Law.
No offense, but since your spelling is atrocious, maybe your reading skills, higher brain functions also are severely lacking?
Not a personal attack at all, but going by the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE after attempting to read your postings.
But, to comment on a specific laughable statement of yours:
"If you are seriously trying to sugest that highly structured and organised systems such as organic compounds, require an input of energy to form... then I have to point out to you that your wrong."
Oh, I get it, humans and all the the plant and animal life on the planet no longer need the sun, water, and food to survive. Ok, gotcha. I'll keep that in mind.
oh, what was that cute icon you used?
ahhh, here it is... | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 960 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:02:25 PM | Dear CR, You may want to check out what Ilya Prigogine actually won the Nobel Prize for, because it really isn’t “for proving that the second law does not apply to 'open systems' such as living creatures, because living things can aquire new energy.” Although his work certainly does have implications for biology.
Here’s his nobel lecture: http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.pdf
Actually, his work in irreversible processes in nonequalibrium thermodynamics (i.e. open systems receiving energy) also included non-biological examples. For example, when a fluid is heated from below it becomes unstable; the warm liquid becomes less dense and rises. But at a certain critical value of the temperature difference between the bottom and top liquids a remarkable thing happens; the system spontaneously forms a regular hexagonal array of convection cells, with liquid in each circulating from bottom to top and back. Prigogine named these ordered nonequilibrium stationary states "dissipative structures".
(http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/Portraits/PortraitsHH_Detail.asp?HH_LName=Prigogine )
Which counters the idea you need life as an initial condition to produce an increasingly ordered system.
As to chemically synthesizing “organic molecules without such a machine” (i.e. biological one) this has been done repeatedly in many experiments. There are also countless examples, such as crystal formation, and many strictly chemical reactions that are driven by solar/geothermal energy that occur naturally.
And as Raziel’s mentioned, organic molecules are also known to form in space; not only do the spectrograph results show this, but sugar molecules have be found in meteorites.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20jun_1.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast20dec_1.htm?list82388
----------------
CR - Raziel is dyslexic... try to focus on the argument. No one should assume what challenges any person here is facing. If you require clarification because of mis-spelling, ask, I'm sure he'll accommodate you. Try to be as accommodating.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:05:29 PM | dryad...
I was quoting what Time magazine had said, perhaps it be best if you ragged them out for misquoting him | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:14:04 PM | uhmmm...
Can you learn how to SPELL? (ENGLISH?)
Isn't this what people do when they can't come up with a convincing argument? Pick at spelling and grammatical errors and hope it distracts those participating in the discussion from noticing that an argument has no rational basis?
Then again, I have been laughing so much at some of the postings, perhaps I may have missed the ones you speak of?
Really? What was so funny? I don't remember anyone ever feeling the need to tell you they were laughing at your posts, probably because they thought it would be rude.
dryad...
I was quoting what Time magazine had said, perhaps it be best if you ragged them out for misquoting him
So its her fault you used a dubious source? Interesting. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:17:29 PM | Lizard...
Time Magazine is a dubious source?
Gee, wait until I call Ted Turner...He'll be impressed...
But I never said it was misquoted, k? LOL
Gawd, and you accuse Creationists of not being able to read...sheeeeeeeeesh
Anyway, Now that I have successfully stirred up a hornet's nest again, my work is done for another day.
OMG This is SO much fun, like teasing a kitten with a piece of string...er...THREAD...:laugh:
Now, on to more important things, like watching paint dry.
Oh, Bright? 2 words: "Spell Check". (And yes, this is a kind suggestion)
BUT, your profile says you drink more than 3 times a week...er..are you drunk now?..hmm...But, again, OBSERVATIONS only. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:20:41 PM | Now that is something that I will not stand for. You can piss tright off and shove it up your a***. I'm not in the mood for mincing my words today as 5 in the morning and I havent eaten today at all.
There is a reason my spelling is so poor, I am dyselxic. But you never thought of that before jumping on the opertunity to rip the piss did you? No, you just decided that as you couldn't win this argument you would personaly attack one of those who was beeting you down with logical, structured and ordered reasoning.
And yes that was a personal attack, and was intended to be insulting, just because you say that it wasnt dose not make it so.
Peolpe like you piss me off. I am highly educated and quite probalby to a greater level than you (although i have no Idea because I don't profes to be able to tell from the way someone spells), and as such am able to see through your poorly veiled attempts to discredit my reputaion by being****head!
I would just like to let you know by the way, that your insults are technicaly illeagle as Dyselxia is a registered disabilty and your coments can be taken as discrimination.
Oh and how you managed to get
all the the plant and animal life on the planet no longer need the sun, water, and food to survive. from my post I do not know. All I pointed out was that low energy sytems can show complexity and even strive towards complexity in attaining entropy.
So why don't you just go and learn to read instead of just seeing the words you petty small minded bigot. I have had enougth of people like you making my life hell, picking on me and taunting me, ruining my life for thier own amusement because they thinks its funny.
(neads a :sit and spin: icon) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:20:51 PM | CR, based on your own comment that it was misquoted, the article you mentioned was dubious. Not every issue of the periodical. Do you see the distinction?
But if you want to call Ted Turner go ahead. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:23:55 PM | Its simple guys.
You can test Evolution in a laboratory. When you start dealing with Intelligent Design, you're dealing with things more philosophical. More in the realm of metaphysics. Intelligent Design has no place in a science class because of this. Its place is in a philosophy class. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:24:57 PM | Thank you Dryad and Majestic_Lizard_Returns.
I would just like to appologise for the brashnes of my previous post, I stand by what I said, but I should have phrased in more polite terms (MUCH more polite terms). I am tired and weiry of thses personal attacks just because I am defending my belife in the provable and the testable sciences instead of bowing down to be indoctrinated by creationist "scientists"! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:26:55 PM | Well, I think that also can be a problematic assertion. There is definately a theological aspect to intelligent design. And theology and philosophy are different. If we start saying ID is philosophy then we can argue for teaching it in school as such. The government should not regulate religion.
-----------------------
To CR:
Oh, Bright? 2 words: "Spell Check". (And yes, this is a kind suggestion)
BUT, your profile says you drink more than 3 times a week...er..are you drunk now?..hmm...But, again, OBSERVATIONS only.
By this time it had already been explained to you that he was dylexic and as I'm sure you are familiar with what that is, this means that you were deliberately mocking a person for his disability.
But I never said it was misquoted, k? LOL Actually, you did. LOL. Or you were implying that Time magazine can't be wrong.
dryad...
I was quoting what Time magazine had said, perhaps it be best if you ragged them out for misquoting him
Now do you have anything productive to add on the subject of Evolution vs Creationism or are you going to persist in deliberately antagonizing people? | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:39:26 PM | | Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious truth. Theo(God) logy(study) Study of God. And when you start studying that stuff you begin exiting what can be discovered in the science lab and more into the realm of metaphysics. Theology is the study of God and the topic of God is definately a branch within philosophy. In my philosophy of religion class we studied many different theologians. I think we should have philosophy of religion classes in public schools. We should also have a world religions course too. :-) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:40:58 PM | The Kelvin-Planck formulation of the 2nd Law is: *"It is impossible for any cyclic process to occur whose sole effect is the extraction of heat from a reservoir and the performance of an equivalent amount of work."
So someone explain to me how evoluton violates this law?
*Thermal Physics, Kittel & Kroemer, 2nd ed., pg 49. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 972 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:41:31 PM | You can test Evolution in a laboratory. When you start dealing with Intelligent Design, you're dealing with things more philosophical. More in the realm of metaphysics. Intelligent Design has no place in a science class because of this. Its place is in a philosophy class.
Yup Simon, that’s pretty close to where I stand on the whole 'should it be taught in a school’s science class'. It’d fit in well in comparative religions or philosophy of religion.
edit: My world religions class was probably one of the best courses I ever took in highschool. It got rid of a great deal of misinformation and opened up completely new ways of looking at things for me. Oh, Lizard the class was optional and didn't press any one religion as correct. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:43:52 PM | It is not a function of the state to regulate religion. First ammendment of the constitution.
World Religions and Theology are classes you can pay to take at college, if you choose to. They should not be taught in public schools because that would be an act of legislating religious belief. This is a matter that you cannot give an inch on or it opens a pandora's box.
Bush likes those Pandora's boxes so its a good idea to keep him away from them. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:45:32 PM | "mocking his disability"
hmm..kinda like, he and many others MOCK my Faith, beliefs, and proven evidences?
His is not a disability, but is a "condition".
(Look it up; The "Oxford Advanced Dictionary" uses the word "condition".)
Conquerable, and able to be dealt with...
ESPECIALLY if one does not DRINK TOO MUCH.
(And yes, I have checked with Medical Professionals on this too.)
So yes, "Spell Check" works wonders.
So, gee, excuuuuuse me for some light hearted teasing, k?
I was NOT being cruel at all.
And, to wonka below? Jesus Himself spoke some very 'severe' words to certain ones who needed it too.
Now, I MUST get back to watching paint dry, SO much more fun. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:47:36 PM | Raziel- This is what that CR guy does; don't let it get to you brother. I find it very relevant that the person who comports himself in the least christian manner is the one who seems to think he's it's spokesperson. You know, CR, I've read the bible, and although I might not think it's gospel, I think it's peppered with some great historical literature and philosophy. And frankly, I'd like to know how you believe that you are being christian in your behaviour.
MLR- I would argue that theology is an offshoot branch of philosophy, specifically ontology. The existence of god is certainly a philisophical querry. Agreed that when delving into the particulars after accepting the premise it veers from formal philosophy, but it is certainly still related to both ontology, ethics and even teleology. | |
|
|
| Page 39 of 156
|
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 |
|
Home
login 
