Sigh. Forgive me, but we've been here before and this is all utterly pointless. Marc, give up now. Let it go. Walk away.
I'm sorry, I won't forgive you. Giving up is the absolutely last and worst thing to do. True, this is an old road trodden by millions of feet, but in any debate like this, it is absolutely important to have the last word and to reply to every misconception and deceit. All in a civil manner of course. To do otherwise is to lose and give ground.
You who are in Europe have an advantage that this sort of socio-political-religious movement isn't as prevalent, and can relax a little, but in the USA, there is an active movement to discredit evolution. It seems to be well funded, has an audience, and has insinuated itself into conservative politics. Anti-evolutionists actively try to get elected into education boards, which typically have very few if any candidates, to change the curiculum. And they have done so in many American states and counties.
Joseph Goebbels was correct, if you tell a lie enough, people will believe it. Without someone informing people that there is a counterview, the truth, people will come to believe almost anything. Eric Blair was correct, ignorance is strength. In the human psyche, to not have to think and stretch the mind reduces doubt and fortifies belief and loyalty. To counter this sort of handicap, we have to be relentless. Every misconception and deceit has to be rebutted. We always must have the last word.
Just in case we were getting anyhwere... I'll throw my athiest hat into the ring.
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. A super being or beings could influence us at any point in history regardless of whether life can evovle independently.
And...
Creationism could be false and evolution true even if god exists. Maybe superior beings just sit by and watch nature take it's course.
And...
Evolution could be false and there still not be a god.
For the record, I believe in empirical data and the scientific method instead of the mythology. When new evidence is presented, I will revise my views if neccessary.
Well in this instance I would invoke occam's razor, and say that if God really did make the world x thousand years ago, it's simpler to accept the account at face value, especially if there is not damning evidence to the contrary. (based upon my personal studies, there haven't been any)
Well, this depends on whether you trust the all the observable evidence or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
LOL. That's what I thought this whole thread was about. Just because creationists hold a fairly simple theory (God made it) makes us "stupid" and "simple". Am I "stupid" and "simple" for wanting a non-intrusive operating system? As I remember, Mac users used to be characterized as such. I point you to my earlier statements about it being either A or B. If it's not one, it pretty much has to be the other.
So. There is an explanation for how we got here that accords with every single one of the observable, measurable facts available to us in the fields of geology, archeology, palaeontology, genetics, astrophysics and even linguistics and anthropology. Over this explanation you have chosen a passage from one specific piece of scripture that tells us we were created over seven days by some numinous, inexplicable force.
And you have the gall to call your explanation 'non-intrusive'.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
To quote a charismatic creationist, "Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." (I guess that makes me a Decieved, doesn't it?)
It's no source of amazement to me to observe the conclusions different people can come to based on the same evidence. Fact of the matter is, many fossils exist in massive boneyards that consist of thousands of species all jumbled on top of each other (and these can be found all over the world in similar rock layers). You name a process other than a flood that can do that.
One process? Just the one? Just the one flood? To explain how individual stratum in a rock face can record environmental conditions over millions of years that accord perfectly across entire continents, and contain fossils of animals and creatures that belong specifically in those environments? Fossils that display increasing complexity as strata become more recent?
One flood?
If, on the other hand, you meant 'fossils from different geological periods jumbled up together' in those 'boneyards' of yours than your statement is nonsense, contrary to the facts. It is not true. It is, to put it another way, incorrect. If you believe this than yes, you have been lied to and deceived, and you should go and discover the truth for yourself.
Further, it is impossible for this to be true. I can imagine circumstances where fossils from different geological periods might be found jumbled together, in glacial terminal moraine, or in the slag heap of a quarry, for example, but otherwise, no.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
I'm not saying I'm some great thinker or anything, just that I have spent a lot of time going over what I believe and why. Having people ask questions only helps me be critical of what I hold as truth, and make sure that it makes sense.
The truth is amazing. If you want a beautiful, extraordinary explanation moving in its simplicity and incredible in its implications than look at the facts. What actually happened is more amazing than what is related in your book of scripture of choice.
edit: took out the word 'almost' before 'impossible for this to be true'
As Hassan says, the truth is usually more amazing than the stories we tell ourselves.
The truth in this case, is that evolution has never challenged any religion. The scientists who developed, and have repeatedly proved, their various theories of evolution have, overwhelmingly, been Christians and believers.
However, some small sect has decided to invent this battle, this clash of cultures, and in doing so alienate believers and non-believers from each other, for absolutely no reason other than to create power for themselves.
And to do so, since logic, reason and the scientific method are obviously inapplicable, they have appealed repeatedly to man's baser instincts: pride, racism, envy, suspicion, bigotry and imaginary persecution.
It was the creationists who forced people to choose between religion and evolution, but they've put the blame on liberal, elitist, egghead, athiest, jewish, lesbian meddlers. And the people of the US, who sadly really don't have time to understand the ins and out of the science that shapes their world, when the question was repeatedly framed in this black and white manner, naturally choose their religion, which they know and value, over evolution, which even I admit is fantastically awesome and utterly unintuitive in it's implications (though also, at the same time, clearly true).
So that's my message: you don't have to choose. Belief in God and Evolution are utterly unconnected. And anyone who tells you otherwise is up to no good.
Well, this depends on whether you trust the all the observable evidence or not.
That's what I am talking about. Given different data, people will come to different conclusions. Currently, the major paradigm is naturalism. Two hundred years ago, it was creationism. People will tend to interpret the data so that it fits whatever theory currently is accepted as fact. That's human nature.
Quote:
So. There is an explanation for how we got here that accords with every single one of the observable, measurable facts available to us in the fields of geology, archeology, palaeontology, genetics, astrophysics and even linguistics and anthropology.
No, there's not. Even something as (seemingly) simple as digging bones out of the ground can be amazingly obfuscated.
Quote:
Over this explanation you have chosen a passage from one specific piece of scripture that tells us we were created over seven days by some numinous, inexplicable force.
More or less, yes. The reason: For me personally, I have not read about or observed any process that could generate something as complex as even one of the simpler proteins. (And it's not for lack of looking either). In my studies I have observed thousands of proteins, and each one conveys to me a distinct design. Even naturalistic biochemists talk about the "design" of proteins, but will quickly counter with "but of course it had to evolve". This harkens back to the paradigm that I stated before. No one person has a complete view of the processes neccesary for naturalistic evolution. Each field basically looks to another for the "defining" proof.
Quote:
And you have the gall to call your explanation 'non-intrusive'.
No, I said I like my operating systems to be non-intrusive.
As for your questions concerning rock strata, I am out of my depth. Suffice to say, I have seen statments that differ wildly on the same evidence that both make sense. (e.g. rapid cave formation v.s. millions of years). I have always said that if someone could convince me that a single cell came about by evolution, you could get me to believe in the whole naturalistic process without much additional trouble. However, so little is still known about these exceptionally complex processes that conclusive statements about how they occured would be premature to say the least.
Quote:
Further, it is impossible for this to be true. I can imagine circumstances where fossils from different geological periods might be found jumbled together, in glacial terminal moraine, or in the slag heap of a quarry, for example, but otherwise, no.
The imagination is a wonderful thing, no?
Fact is, recent studies by Guy Berthault and Piérre Julien (Colorado State) have shown that given even a local flood, sorting would occur much as it appears in the current fossil strata, and would not take even hundreds of years.
This is the key problem: scientists are attempting to unravel exceptionally complex problems, whether they be the physics of a living cell, or the sidways sorting of sediment. To those unaccustomed with research, much of this seems trivial, when it is not.
Quote:
The truth is amazing. If you want a beautiful, extraordinary explanation moving in its simplicity and incredible in its implications than look at the facts. What actually happened is more amazing than what is related in your book of scripture of choice.
Key problem: The truth is very rarely simple. (Even for a creationist) You yourself hold to a naturalistic mechanism that hasn't even been demonstrated to work on any scale. (If you want to debate cellular evolution, you do that. I've got a whole can of whoop I can bring to the table) Added to that, you assume that as soon as you throw in "billions" of years all the equations become solvable. You sir, need a crash course in thermodynamics.
Firstly, benzene, how do you do? I am Hassan i Sabbah and I am a bastard, but I like the cut of your jib. I'm not going out of my way to be rude here but I ain't going to sugar it. Cool?
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
That's what I am talking about. Given different data, people will come to different conclusions. Currently, the major paradigm is naturalism. Two hundred years ago, it was creationism. People will tend to interpret the data so that it fits whatever theory currently is accepted as fact. That's human nature.
All the observable evidence we have corroborates. It tells us, simply, that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it and on it. One or two scientists outside the consensus might disagree on the precise mechanisms. There is, however, no evidence that contradicts that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it or on it.
I would invite you to present any you have. I can guarantee you without equivocation that I can demolish it, and that any 'evidence' you might present, if curious, cannot possibly question the consensus achieved by the last century of scientific research, not in any serious way. The evidence is utterly, profoundly, overwhelming. I am writing this; you are reading it; the sun came up today; the world is round; water is made from hydrogen and oxygen.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
No, there's not. Even something as (seemingly) simple as digging bones out of the ground can be amazingly obfuscated.
Yes, there is. When I write that there is an explanation that accords with the evidence given us by all those scientific disciplines, it is a fact. If you choose to deny it we may as well end this right here. Because it is true. Archeology, genetics, geology, cosmology, physiology, paleontology, climatology and even linguistics all accord that the planet and our cosmos are ancient, that singular forces shaped it and continue to shape it, and that many of these forces are observable, or predictable if they are not.
Again I invite you to offer any serious contradiction in any of the scientific fields I've listed above that disprove the vast, cross-corroborating evidence turned up in the last century of research.
I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. I tell you this straight.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
More or less, yes. The reason: For me personally, I have not read about or observed any process that could generate something as complex as even one of the simpler proteins. (And it's not for lack of looking either). In my studies I have observed thousands of proteins, and each one conveys to me a distinct design. Even naturalistic biochemists talk about the "design" of proteins, but will quickly counter with "but of course it had to evolve". This harkens back to the paradigm that I stated before. No one person has a complete view of the processes neccesary for naturalistic evolution. Each field basically looks to another for the "defining" proof.
No. There are some things which are just axiomatic. The theory of gravity, for example. Aeronautical scientists don't look to cosmologists when they design aircraft in order to find the 'defining proof' that will let their designs stay up in the air. They make aeroplanes. Geologists don't concern themselves with geneticists. Geneticists don't read cosmologists' peer-reviewed journals. But all the evidence accords that the planet is ancient, that the cosmos is ancient, that the forces that made it are measureable and often observable, and that it was not made 10,000 years ago in six days by an invisible force.
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts. Not physics, biology, geology, genetics and archeology (which we call 'science'.)
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
Suffice to say, I have seen statments that differ wildly on the same evidence that both make sense. (e.g. rapid cave formation v.s. millions of years).
If any of the evidence you are about to present me in the field of geology means that we must count out the sum total of the cross-corroborating evidence from the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology and cosmology ? because that's what you have to do to prove that the Bible is right and that God made the planet and the things in it ? then this thread will win you a Nobel Prize and you are the greatest genius alive today.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
I have always said that if someone could convince me that a single cell came about by evolution, you could get me to believe in the whole naturalistic process without much additional trouble. However, so little is still known about these exceptionally complex processes that conclusive statements about how they occured would be premature to say the least.
Nothing in this paragraph is true. I don't care whether or not you believe it. Nothing in this paragraph is right.
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene
The imagination is a wonderful thing, no?
So. God makes this universe. It's awesomely vast and beautiful; it's perfect.
"Look at what I've done! Look at the beauty and majesty of what I've made for you!" he says.
Okay. This could get interesting but I also see trouble ahead so I just warn you all on both sides. I will delete posts I think contains personal attacks and if I can´t handle it it will be closed without warning. Everything relevant to a discussion between evolution and creationism is fine to bring to the table. But this is not a discussion about creationists and evolutionists. So the other side isn´t ignorant, stupid, sheep etc. They are your discussion partners in a intelligent debate and you should not post here to impress anyone. You should only post here in the (false? Yes I know. but notheless) hope to convince the other side based on arguments.
Hassans post sans his ideas of how futile he will be in convincing benzene is the ideal post. Try to follow his pattern folks.
And now I want the facts from both sides. Show your cards gentlemen
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts.
Actually, the biggest problem with creationism pretending to be science is not that which creationism claims which impossible to prove, but all which it claims which is impossible to disprove.
In other words, creationism is not falsifiable. I don't think that most Creationists understand that falsifiability is a good thing.
Given sufficient zeal and desire to Believe, any thing that doesn't readily make sense can be explained away by appealing to miracles.
How did enough rain fall to flood the entire planet? Must have been a miracle.
Where did all of that water go when The Flood retreated? I guess God used another miracle to make the extra water disappear.
How did ecology of plant life recover from long submersion? How did fresh water fish survive exposure to salt water and vice versa? How did the small population of animal life aboard Noah's little ark produce viable, healthy offspring after being reduced to such a small pool of genetic diversity? The answers are simple: miracle, miracle, miracle and miracle.
Anything which doesn't make sense to your faithless mind can be easily explained by Those Who Believe by saying "God made it so".
Eric Blair was correct, ignorance is strength. In the human psyche, to not have to think and stretch the mind reduces doubt and fortifies belief and loyalty.
(Eric Blair is George Orwell author of 1984 and Animal Farm).
Quote:
Added to that, you assume that as soon as you throw in "billions" of years all the equations become solvable. You sir, need a crash course in thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, increases in closed systems. The universe is a closed system. Earth is not, due to the presence of the Sun, supplying us with considerable amounts of energy.
Closed systems vs. open systems. So many creationists still don't get it. Take that crash course yourself.
Now, a few inventive creationists do show some vague signs of understanding that, yes, order and complexity can and do increase locally in open systems with an influx of energy. How have they tried to cope with this? With a lot of BS about "information", trying to categorize "information" as something special, beyond mere "order" in a thermodynamic sense.
All of which comes down an unfounded layering of human concepts like purpose and intent on top of the idea of information.
And of course, no explanation is ever forthcoming about where The Big Guy gets all of His information. He, well, he just has it, that's all. He's God, he gets to have all the information he wants, by definition, thermodynamics be damned.
All the observable evidence we have corroborates. It tells us, simply, that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it and on it. One or two scientists outside the consensus might disagree on the precise mechanisms. There is, however, no evidence that contradicts that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it or on it.
We are debating the interpretation of the evidence right now. Not the evidence itself, but what the evidence says. Just because popular opinion interprets it one way, does not mean it is correct. (As has been repeated many times about the american voters)
Quote:
I would invite you to present any you have. I can guarantee you without equivocation that I can demolish it, and that any 'evidence' you might present, if curious, cannot possibly question the consensus achieved by the last century of scientific research, not in any serious way.
As I said, we are inspecting the interpretations of the data, not in a war in which we throw data about at each other. Every interpetation you give me I could counter, it's just which one fits the data better. (And this is, for the most part in the current topic under debate, highly subjective)
Quote:
The evidence is utterly, profoundly, overwhelming. I am writing this; you are reading it; the sun came up today; the world is round; water is made from hydrogen and oxygen.
Actually, modern physics says that the entire universe is actually a peturbation in spacetime, and that therefore technically, "matter" does not exist as we think of it. But this borders on semantics and philosophy. Also, the earth is not perfectly round, and the sun "did not come up". The earth rotated so as to make it appear that the sun came up. Again, semantics, but they go to show how I can interpret the same data in a subtly different way (in this case, more accurately).
Quote:
When I write that there is an explanation that accords with the evidence given us by all those scientific disciplines it is a fact. If you choose to deny it we may as well end this right here.
You are so funny! We don't even know why gravity "works". We call it a law because every time we test it, it performs in exactly the same way. To say that anything in science is "simple" is to truly miss the point. The universe is exeedingly complex.
And yet, evolution of the species is considered a "fact", even though it has never been observed.
Quote:
Because it is true. Archeology, genetics, geology, cosmology, physiology, paleontology, climatology and even linguistics all accord that the planet and our cosmos are ancient, that singular forces shaped it and continue to shape it, and that many of these forces are observable, or predictable if they are not.
Again, you are taking the data and looking at it through naturalistic goggles. I've already covered this point. Deal with specifics, or this thread will quickly spiral into pure semantics.
Quote:
Again I invite you to offer any serious contradiction in any of the scientific fields I've listed above that disprove the vast, cross-collaborating evidence turned up in the last century of research.
Well, for starters, I've been harping on cellular evolution quite heavily. Let's start there shall we? If you have an area of expertise, pick something from there and I'll do some research into it. Any knowledge is good knowledge.
Quote:
I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. I tell you this straight.
I figured that out a while ago. People in my department try doing that every day. I have had some excellent and very level headed discussions with them.
Quote:
No. There are some things which are just axiomatic. The theory of gravity, for example.
As I said earlier, it's an axiom because every time we test it, it has proven true. However, that doesn't stop researchers from finding out why it's true. That, sir, is the key. Not to be content with merely assuming it's true, but why it is so (and hopefully, how to harness it).
Quote:
Aeronautical scientists don't look to cosmologists when they design aircraft in order to find the 'defining proof' that will let their designs stay up in the air. They make aeroplanes. Geologists don't concern themselves with geneticists. Geneticists don't read cosmologists' peer-reviewed journals. But all the evidence accords that the planet is ancient, that the cosmos is ancient, that the forces that made it are measureable and often observable, and that it was not made 10,000 years ago in six days by an invisible force.
Aeronautical scientists do not look to cosmologists for advice, because aeronautics has very little to do with the cosmos. However, paleontology and genetics do: Evolution. Paleontology expects to see the fossil record change over time, whereas geneticists look for genetic change in living organisms (usually). The natural sciences tend to have that one theory in common: evolution. As I said before, its a paradigm.
Quote:
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts. Not physics, biology, geology, genetics and archeology (which we call 'science'.)
Difficult? hardly. Unmanageable? Only to those who don't like to think that something out there is a whole lot more powerful than we can comprehend.
Contradictory? Only to the current interpretation as held by many.
Impossible to prove? Go to rcsb.org and download a few protein structures. You'll find blatant design crawling all over them.
Science is only a tool. It's a way of critical thinking.
Actually, I'm going to give you a page written by evolutionists. They do a pretty good job of going over the current "Intellegent Design" theories, as well as refuting them. It should save you some time. link
Quote:
If any of the evidence you are about to present me in the field of geology means that we must count out the sum total of the cross-collaborating evidence from the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology and cosmology ? because that's what you have to do to prove that the Bible is right and that God made the planet and the things in it ? then this thread will win you a Nobel Prize and you are the greatest genius alive today.
Well, although I'd like a Nobel prize, I'm not going to attack it head on because it's not my field of expertise.
However, as you know, geology has to do with primarily the study of the earth's crust, and it's strata and convolutions. As such, we have just scratched the surface of starting the scientific process in geology, and are limited at this point to observations and hypotheses. (Because we are unable to test them at will). As an example of hypotheses needing to be changed, until very recently it was thought that the very fine striations seen in hardened sediments was proof of a long period of time (this is still accepted as true today by many people). However, the pyroclastic flow of mount st. helens proved it can happen in minutes.
It all boils down to the delusion that a scientist can come to a unifying theory that ties all the evidence together in a single field with only observations. (let alone all of science as a whole)
Quote:
Nothing in this paragraph is true. I don't care whether or not you believe it. Nothing in this paragraph is right.
You know, your simply saying that doesn't make it so.
Quote:
So. God makes this universe. It's awesomely vast and beautiful; it's perfect.
"Look at what I've done! Look at the beauty and majesty of what I've made for you!" he says.
"Not now, God," you say. "I'm reading a Book."
Well, that the great thing about being where I am right now. The books I read apply directly to his creation.
[edit]
As for the rest of you, you'll have to wait till I get home.
Guys, you're getting this all wrong. The issue is wether the Genesis theory stands up to the same kind of scrutiny that the Creationists pour over evolution.
If you discuss Evolution theory with them, you are playing the game on their terms, that is what creationists want. If we are to rid the world of fantasy theories, you need to go for the Jugular on Creation theory. If you start debating evolution, you are playing into their hands under their rules of deceit.
As we all know the theory of evolution doesn't say what created life, doesn't rule out god, doesn't produce elephants out of pigs - so even if every snippet of evolution theory proves to be wrong, it doesn't mean that creation theory is any more credible.
Dont be foolish enough to argue the finer points of evolution. Thats their strawman. Their rules. Their deception.
Make the rules. Scrutinize their theory. Test their dogma.
To any creationists about to post. I ask one new question.
"Before you cite evidence" - ask God "if it is really the truth". God doesn't lie. If I find proof that your claim is not true, I'll prove that you have not been talking to God. And that means you either talked to Satan, or fooled yourself.
I want to know what God says when you ask him.
Is the theory of evolution the most accurate explanation we have of how humankind found itself on the Earth?
Was their ever a global flood as described in the Book of Genesis?
Was Josephus' writing altered by the Catholic church to give credibility to Jesus' existance?
Did Christianity evolve from sun-worship?
Is arguing about the theory of evolution's credibility going to make my place in Heaven more secure.
Closed systems vs. open systems. So many creationists still don't get it. Take that crash course yourself.
Now, a few inventive creationists do show some vague signs of understanding that, yes, order and complexity can and do increase locally in open systems with an influx of energy. How have they tried to cope with this? With a lot of BS about "information", trying to categorize "information" as something special, beyond mere "order" in a thermodynamic sense.
All of which comes down an unfounded layering of human concepts like purpose and intent on top of the idea of information.
And of course, no explanation is ever forthcoming about where The Big Guy gets all of His information. He, well, he just has it, that's all. He's God, he gets to have all the information he wants, by definition, thermodynamics be damned.
Stoo was right when he said that the earth (and therefore living systems) were not closed systems. However, his knowledge ends there.
All living systems are entropy pumps, meaning that they use disorder to make order. i.e. the coupling of ATP hyrolysis to make DNA phosphodiester bonds.
This is the key problem: Matter (and simple compounds) simply do not posess the ability to couple entropy. You can dump all of the energy you want into a system, and all you will succede in is making more disorder.
That, dear sirs, is one of the key problems facing evolutionists today. The sheer thermodynamics involved in generating systems as complex as a living cell are a major tripping stone.
You are misrepresenting the creationist statement. When we talk about systems that are able to couple thermodynamic reactions, we are saying that to do so, they must be more complex than simply unordered compounds and therefore contain information. As a matter of fact, Dean Kenyon, the author of the book "Biochemical Predestination" (which for years was pronounced as a "creationism killer") that attempted to explain how simple compounds could autocouple eventually reached the conclusion that the theories he described simply would not work. (and became a creationist)
I'm actually glad this thermodynamic section came up. Marc, if you really want a stone to bang your head against as a tough problem for evolutionists, this is definitely one of them.
Benzene, do this. Take a bowl and a bunch of marbles of the same size. Dump the marbles into the bowl.
Voila! A pattern! A design! The marbles line up perfectly!
Must be the work of God!
I truly do dread posting in this thread, since I've seen how well we've all handled this before.
But your analogy has to be rebutted. It's insane, giving that the 'pattern' produced is utterly random.
Intelligent Design, from what I know of the theory, argues that the outcome of the earth's beginnings is too complex to have been the product of random chaos.
A better analogy would be throwing paint against a wall and ending up with the Mona Lisa, or a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747.
I give a lot of credit to Darwin, he worked with the data he had (and actually had very kind things to say about Christians.) But anyone who's read The Origin of Species knows that Darwin firmly believed the fossil record would firmly validate his theory, and it hasn't.
In Darwin's day, the intricacies of the human body were largely unknown on a molecular level. He figured (and stated) that the 'simple' processes that take place inside the cells of the human body were the product of random selection. But the whole science of DNA, and the Human Genome project has illuminated our thinking on this subject, and I doubt that Darwin would make many of the claims he did - had he known.
This is the key problem: Matter (and simple compounds) simply do not posess the ability to couple entropy. You can dump all of the energy you want into a system, and all you will succede in is making more disorder.
That, dear sirs, is one of the key problems facing evolutionists today. The sheer thermodynamics involved in generating systems as complex as a living cell are a major tripping stone.
I know this is one of those talking points for creationists, but I honestly don't understand what thermodynamics has to do with evolution or natural selection. Organisms survive and reproduce, some more successfully than others, and so some some traits are passed down more frequently than others. Over an unimaginably long period of time, you get all your diversity in life.
Where is entropy or heat transfer or anything involving the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated, or even relevant at all? Aren't we just talking about variation and survival and death and reproduction?
It can! If the marbles were in a slight pile (but still in a pattern), after shaking, you might find that they've flattened out around the bowl a bit more. Or some of the heavier marbles (if they are of different weights) might have settled to the bottom.
The more you shake, the less random the arrangement.
Actually, the test would be to take a perfectly ordered system of these marbles at its potential energetic minimum and then shake... it will more often than not end in a state that is higher in potential energy than it begins -- the reason is that entropic benefit of not knowing where even two marbles are far outweighs any energetic benefit of putting everything in its single most stable conformation...
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Sigh. Forgive me, but we've been here before and this is all utterly pointless. Marc, give up now. Let it go. Walk away.
I'm sorry, I won't forgive you. Giving up is the absolutely last and worst thing to do. True, this is an old road trodden by millions of feet, but in any debate like this, it is absolutely important to have the last word and to reply to every misconception and deceit. All in a civil manner of course. To do otherwise is to lose and give ground.
You who are in Europe have an advantage that this sort of socio-political-religious movement isn't as prevalent, and can relax a little, but in the USA, there is an active movement to discredit evolution. It seems to be well funded, has an audience, and has insinuated itself into conservative politics. Anti-evolutionists actively try to get elected into education boards, which typically have very few if any candidates, to change the curiculum. And they have done so in many American states and counties.
Joseph Goebbels was correct, if you tell a lie enough, people will believe it. Without someone informing people that there is a counterview, the truth, people will come to believe almost anything. Eric Blair was correct, ignorance is strength. In the human psyche, to not have to think and stretch the mind reduces doubt and fortifies belief and loyalty. To counter this sort of handicap, we have to be relentless. Every misconception and deceit has to be rebutted. We always must have the last word.
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. A super being or beings could influence us at any point in history regardless of whether life can evovle independently.
And...
Creationism could be false and evolution true even if god exists. Maybe superior beings just sit by and watch nature take it's course.
And...
Evolution could be false and there still not be a god.
For the record, I believe in empirical data and the scientific method instead of the mythology. When new evidence is presented, I will revise my views if neccessary.
Originally posted by benzene
Well in this instance I would invoke occam's razor, and say that if God really did make the world x thousand years ago, it's simpler to accept the account at face value, especially if there is not damning evidence to the contrary. (based upon my personal studies, there haven't been any)
Well, this depends on whether you trust the all the observable evidence or not.
Originally posted by benzene
LOL. That's what I thought this whole thread was about. Just because creationists hold a fairly simple theory (God made it) makes us "stupid" and "simple". Am I "stupid" and "simple" for wanting a non-intrusive operating system? As I remember, Mac users used to be characterized as such. I point you to my earlier statements about it being either A or B. If it's not one, it pretty much has to be the other.
So. There is an explanation for how we got here that accords with every single one of the observable, measurable facts available to us in the fields of geology, archeology, palaeontology, genetics, astrophysics and even linguistics and anthropology. Over this explanation you have chosen a passage from one specific piece of scripture that tells us we were created over seven days by some numinous, inexplicable force.
And you have the gall to call your explanation 'non-intrusive'.
Originally posted by benzene
To quote a charismatic creationist, "Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth." (I guess that makes me a Decieved, doesn't it?)
It's no source of amazement to me to observe the conclusions different people can come to based on the same evidence. Fact of the matter is, many fossils exist in massive boneyards that consist of thousands of species all jumbled on top of each other (and these can be found all over the world in similar rock layers). You name a process other than a flood that can do that.
One process? Just the one? Just the one flood? To explain how individual stratum in a rock face can record environmental conditions over millions of years that accord perfectly across entire continents, and contain fossils of animals and creatures that belong specifically in those environments? Fossils that display increasing complexity as strata become more recent?
One flood?
If, on the other hand, you meant 'fossils from different geological periods jumbled up together' in those 'boneyards' of yours than your statement is nonsense, contrary to the facts. It is not true. It is, to put it another way, incorrect. If you believe this than yes, you have been lied to and deceived, and you should go and discover the truth for yourself.
Further, it is impossible for this to be true. I can imagine circumstances where fossils from different geological periods might be found jumbled together, in glacial terminal moraine, or in the slag heap of a quarry, for example, but otherwise, no.
Originally posted by benzene
I'm not saying I'm some great thinker or anything, just that I have spent a lot of time going over what I believe and why. Having people ask questions only helps me be critical of what I hold as truth, and make sure that it makes sense.
The truth is amazing. If you want a beautiful, extraordinary explanation moving in its simplicity and incredible in its implications than look at the facts. What actually happened is more amazing than what is related in your book of scripture of choice.
edit: took out the word 'almost' before 'impossible for this to be true'
The truth in this case, is that evolution has never challenged any religion. The scientists who developed, and have repeatedly proved, their various theories of evolution have, overwhelmingly, been Christians and believers.
However, some small sect has decided to invent this battle, this clash of cultures, and in doing so alienate believers and non-believers from each other, for absolutely no reason other than to create power for themselves.
And to do so, since logic, reason and the scientific method are obviously inapplicable, they have appealed repeatedly to man's baser instincts: pride, racism, envy, suspicion, bigotry and imaginary persecution.
It was the creationists who forced people to choose between religion and evolution, but they've put the blame on liberal, elitist, egghead, athiest, jewish, lesbian meddlers. And the people of the US, who sadly really don't have time to understand the ins and out of the science that shapes their world, when the question was repeatedly framed in this black and white manner, naturally choose their religion, which they know and value, over evolution, which even I admit is fantastically awesome and utterly unintuitive in it's implications (though also, at the same time, clearly true).
So that's my message: you don't have to choose. Belief in God and Evolution are utterly unconnected. And anyone who tells you otherwise is up to no good.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, this depends on whether you trust the all the observable evidence or not.
That's what I am talking about. Given different data, people will come to different conclusions. Currently, the major paradigm is naturalism. Two hundred years ago, it was creationism. People will tend to interpret the data so that it fits whatever theory currently is accepted as fact. That's human nature.
So. There is an explanation for how we got here that accords with every single one of the observable, measurable facts available to us in the fields of geology, archeology, palaeontology, genetics, astrophysics and even linguistics and anthropology.
No, there's not. Even something as (seemingly) simple as digging bones out of the ground can be amazingly obfuscated.
Over this explanation you have chosen a passage from one specific piece of scripture that tells us we were created over seven days by some numinous, inexplicable force.
More or less, yes. The reason: For me personally, I have not read about or observed any process that could generate something as complex as even one of the simpler proteins. (And it's not for lack of looking either). In my studies I have observed thousands of proteins, and each one conveys to me a distinct design. Even naturalistic biochemists talk about the "design" of proteins, but will quickly counter with "but of course it had to evolve". This harkens back to the paradigm that I stated before. No one person has a complete view of the processes neccesary for naturalistic evolution. Each field basically looks to another for the "defining" proof.
And you have the gall to call your explanation 'non-intrusive'.
No, I said I like my operating systems to be non-intrusive.
As for your questions concerning rock strata, I am out of my depth. Suffice to say, I have seen statments that differ wildly on the same evidence that both make sense. (e.g. rapid cave formation v.s. millions of years). I have always said that if someone could convince me that a single cell came about by evolution, you could get me to believe in the whole naturalistic process without much additional trouble. However, so little is still known about these exceptionally complex processes that conclusive statements about how they occured would be premature to say the least.
Further, it is impossible for this to be true. I can imagine circumstances where fossils from different geological periods might be found jumbled together, in glacial terminal moraine, or in the slag heap of a quarry, for example, but otherwise, no.
The imagination is a wonderful thing, no?
Fact is, recent studies by Guy Berthault and Piérre Julien (Colorado State) have shown that given even a local flood, sorting would occur much as it appears in the current fossil strata, and would not take even hundreds of years.
This is the key problem: scientists are attempting to unravel exceptionally complex problems, whether they be the physics of a living cell, or the sidways sorting of sediment. To those unaccustomed with research, much of this seems trivial, when it is not.
The truth is amazing. If you want a beautiful, extraordinary explanation moving in its simplicity and incredible in its implications than look at the facts. What actually happened is more amazing than what is related in your book of scripture of choice.
Key problem: The truth is very rarely simple. (Even for a creationist) You yourself hold to a naturalistic mechanism that hasn't even been demonstrated to work on any scale. (If you want to debate cellular evolution, you do that. I've got a whole can of whoop I can bring to the table) Added to that, you assume that as soon as you throw in "billions" of years all the equations become solvable. You sir, need a crash course in thermodynamics.
Originally posted by benzene
If you want to debate cellular evolution, you do that. I've got a whole can of whoop I can bring to the table.
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're getting into here.
Originally posted by benzene
That's what I am talking about. Given different data, people will come to different conclusions. Currently, the major paradigm is naturalism. Two hundred years ago, it was creationism. People will tend to interpret the data so that it fits whatever theory currently is accepted as fact. That's human nature.
All the observable evidence we have corroborates. It tells us, simply, that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it and on it. One or two scientists outside the consensus might disagree on the precise mechanisms. There is, however, no evidence that contradicts that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it or on it.
I would invite you to present any you have. I can guarantee you without equivocation that I can demolish it, and that any 'evidence' you might present, if curious, cannot possibly question the consensus achieved by the last century of scientific research, not in any serious way. The evidence is utterly, profoundly, overwhelming. I am writing this; you are reading it; the sun came up today; the world is round; water is made from hydrogen and oxygen.
Originally posted by benzene
No, there's not. Even something as (seemingly) simple as digging bones out of the ground can be amazingly obfuscated.
Yes, there is. When I write that there is an explanation that accords with the evidence given us by all those scientific disciplines, it is a fact. If you choose to deny it we may as well end this right here. Because it is true. Archeology, genetics, geology, cosmology, physiology, paleontology, climatology and even linguistics all accord that the planet and our cosmos are ancient, that singular forces shaped it and continue to shape it, and that many of these forces are observable, or predictable if they are not.
Again I invite you to offer any serious contradiction in any of the scientific fields I've listed above that disprove the vast, cross-corroborating evidence turned up in the last century of research.
I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. I tell you this straight.
Originally posted by benzene
More or less, yes. The reason: For me personally, I have not read about or observed any process that could generate something as complex as even one of the simpler proteins. (And it's not for lack of looking either). In my studies I have observed thousands of proteins, and each one conveys to me a distinct design. Even naturalistic biochemists talk about the "design" of proteins, but will quickly counter with "but of course it had to evolve". This harkens back to the paradigm that I stated before. No one person has a complete view of the processes neccesary for naturalistic evolution. Each field basically looks to another for the "defining" proof.
No. There are some things which are just axiomatic. The theory of gravity, for example. Aeronautical scientists don't look to cosmologists when they design aircraft in order to find the 'defining proof' that will let their designs stay up in the air. They make aeroplanes. Geologists don't concern themselves with geneticists. Geneticists don't read cosmologists' peer-reviewed journals. But all the evidence accords that the planet is ancient, that the cosmos is ancient, that the forces that made it are measureable and often observable, and that it was not made 10,000 years ago in six days by an invisible force.
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts. Not physics, biology, geology, genetics and archeology (which we call 'science'.)
Originally posted by benzene
Suffice to say, I have seen statments that differ wildly on the same evidence that both make sense. (e.g. rapid cave formation v.s. millions of years).
Where. What. Links, references, titles, authors. Anything.
If any of the evidence you are about to present me in the field of geology means that we must count out the sum total of the cross-corroborating evidence from the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology and cosmology ? because that's what you have to do to prove that the Bible is right and that God made the planet and the things in it ? then this thread will win you a Nobel Prize and you are the greatest genius alive today.
Originally posted by benzene
I have always said that if someone could convince me that a single cell came about by evolution, you could get me to believe in the whole naturalistic process without much additional trouble. However, so little is still known about these exceptionally complex processes that conclusive statements about how they occured would be premature to say the least.
Nothing in this paragraph is true. I don't care whether or not you believe it. Nothing in this paragraph is right.
Originally posted by benzene
The imagination is a wonderful thing, no?
So. God makes this universe. It's awesomely vast and beautiful; it's perfect.
"Look at what I've done! Look at the beauty and majesty of what I've made for you!" he says.
"Not now, God," you say. "I'm reading a Book."
Hassans post sans his ideas of how futile he will be in convincing benzene is the ideal post. Try to follow his pattern folks.
And now I want the facts from both sides. Show your cards gentlemen
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts.
Actually, the biggest problem with creationism pretending to be science is not that which creationism claims which impossible to prove, but all which it claims which is impossible to disprove.
In other words, creationism is not falsifiable. I don't think that most Creationists understand that falsifiability is a good thing.
Given sufficient zeal and desire to Believe, any thing that doesn't readily make sense can be explained away by appealing to miracles.
How did enough rain fall to flood the entire planet? Must have been a miracle.
Where did all of that water go when The Flood retreated? I guess God used another miracle to make the extra water disappear.
How did ecology of plant life recover from long submersion? How did fresh water fish survive exposure to salt water and vice versa? How did the small population of animal life aboard Noah's little ark produce viable, healthy offspring after being reduced to such a small pool of genetic diversity? The answers are simple: miracle, miracle, miracle and miracle.
Anything which doesn't make sense to your faithless mind can be easily explained by Those Who Believe by saying "God made it so".
Eric Blair was correct, ignorance is strength. In the human psyche, to not have to think and stretch the mind reduces doubt and fortifies belief and loyalty.
(Eric Blair is George Orwell author of 1984 and Animal Farm).
Added to that, you assume that as soon as you throw in "billions" of years all the equations become solvable. You sir, need a crash course in thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, increases in closed systems. The universe is a closed system. Earth is not, due to the presence of the Sun, supplying us with considerable amounts of energy.
Originally posted by benzene
You sir, need a crash course in thermodynamics.
Oy, vey!
Closed systems vs. open systems. So many creationists still don't get it. Take that crash course yourself.
Now, a few inventive creationists do show some vague signs of understanding that, yes, order and complexity can and do increase locally in open systems with an influx of energy. How have they tried to cope with this? With a lot of BS about "information", trying to categorize "information" as something special, beyond mere "order" in a thermodynamic sense.
All of which comes down an unfounded layering of human concepts like purpose and intent on top of the idea of information.
And of course, no explanation is ever forthcoming about where The Big Guy gets all of His information. He, well, he just has it, that's all. He's God, he gets to have all the information he wants, by definition, thermodynamics be damned.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
All the observable evidence we have corroborates. It tells us, simply, that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it and on it. One or two scientists outside the consensus might disagree on the precise mechanisms. There is, however, no evidence that contradicts that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it or on it.
We are debating the interpretation of the evidence right now. Not the evidence itself, but what the evidence says. Just because popular opinion interprets it one way, does not mean it is correct. (As has been repeated many times about the american voters)
I would invite you to present any you have. I can guarantee you without equivocation that I can demolish it, and that any 'evidence' you might present, if curious, cannot possibly question the consensus achieved by the last century of scientific research, not in any serious way.
As I said, we are inspecting the interpretations of the data, not in a war in which we throw data about at each other. Every interpetation you give me I could counter, it's just which one fits the data better. (And this is, for the most part in the current topic under debate, highly subjective)
The evidence is utterly, profoundly, overwhelming. I am writing this; you are reading it; the sun came up today; the world is round; water is made from hydrogen and oxygen.
Actually, modern physics says that the entire universe is actually a peturbation in spacetime, and that therefore technically, "matter" does not exist as we think of it. But this borders on semantics and philosophy. Also, the earth is not perfectly round, and the sun "did not come up". The earth rotated so as to make it appear that the sun came up. Again, semantics, but they go to show how I can interpret the same data in a subtly different way (in this case, more accurately).
When I write that there is an explanation that accords with the evidence given us by all those scientific disciplines it is a fact. If you choose to deny it we may as well end this right here.
You are so funny! We don't even know why gravity "works". We call it a law because every time we test it, it performs in exactly the same way. To say that anything in science is "simple" is to truly miss the point. The universe is exeedingly complex.
And yet, evolution of the species is considered a "fact", even though it has never been observed.
Because it is true. Archeology, genetics, geology, cosmology, physiology, paleontology, climatology and even linguistics all accord that the planet and our cosmos are ancient, that singular forces shaped it and continue to shape it, and that many of these forces are observable, or predictable if they are not.
Again, you are taking the data and looking at it through naturalistic goggles. I've already covered this point. Deal with specifics, or this thread will quickly spiral into pure semantics.
Again I invite you to offer any serious contradiction in any of the scientific fields I've listed above that disprove the vast, cross-collaborating evidence turned up in the last century of research.
Well, for starters, I've been harping on cellular evolution quite heavily. Let's start there shall we? If you have an area of expertise, pick something from there and I'll do some research into it. Any knowledge is good knowledge.
I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. I tell you this straight.
I figured that out a while ago. People in my department try doing that every day. I have had some excellent and very level headed discussions with them.
No. There are some things which are just axiomatic. The theory of gravity, for example.
As I said earlier, it's an axiom because every time we test it, it has proven true. However, that doesn't stop researchers from finding out why it's true. That, sir, is the key. Not to be content with merely assuming it's true, but why it is so (and hopefully, how to harness it).
Aeronautical scientists don't look to cosmologists when they design aircraft in order to find the 'defining proof' that will let their designs stay up in the air. They make aeroplanes. Geologists don't concern themselves with geneticists. Geneticists don't read cosmologists' peer-reviewed journals. But all the evidence accords that the planet is ancient, that the cosmos is ancient, that the forces that made it are measureable and often observable, and that it was not made 10,000 years ago in six days by an invisible force.
Aeronautical scientists do not look to cosmologists for advice, because aeronautics has very little to do with the cosmos. However, paleontology and genetics do: Evolution. Paleontology expects to see the fossil record change over time, whereas geneticists look for genetic change in living organisms (usually). The natural sciences tend to have that one theory in common: evolution. As I said before, its a paradigm.
Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts. Not physics, biology, geology, genetics and archeology (which we call 'science'.)
Difficult? hardly. Unmanageable? Only to those who don't like to think that something out there is a whole lot more powerful than we can comprehend.
Contradictory? Only to the current interpretation as held by many.
Impossible to prove? Go to rcsb.org and download a few protein structures. You'll find blatant design crawling all over them.
Science is only a tool. It's a way of critical thinking.
Where. What. Links, references, titles, authors. Anything.
Actually, I'm going to give you a page written by evolutionists. They do a pretty good job of going over the current "Intellegent Design" theories, as well as refuting them. It should save you some time. link
If any of the evidence you are about to present me in the field of geology means that we must count out the sum total of the cross-collaborating evidence from the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology and cosmology ? because that's what you have to do to prove that the Bible is right and that God made the planet and the things in it ? then this thread will win you a Nobel Prize and you are the greatest genius alive today.
Well, although I'd like a Nobel prize, I'm not going to attack it head on because it's not my field of expertise.
However, as you know, geology has to do with primarily the study of the earth's crust, and it's strata and convolutions. As such, we have just scratched the surface of starting the scientific process in geology, and are limited at this point to observations and hypotheses. (Because we are unable to test them at will). As an example of hypotheses needing to be changed, until very recently it was thought that the very fine striations seen in hardened sediments was proof of a long period of time (this is still accepted as true today by many people). However, the pyroclastic flow of mount st. helens proved it can happen in minutes.
It all boils down to the delusion that a scientist can come to a unifying theory that ties all the evidence together in a single field with only observations. (let alone all of science as a whole)
Nothing in this paragraph is true. I don't care whether or not you believe it. Nothing in this paragraph is right.
You know, your simply saying that doesn't make it so.
So. God makes this universe. It's awesomely vast and beautiful; it's perfect.
"Look at what I've done! Look at the beauty and majesty of what I've made for you!" he says.
"Not now, God," you say. "I'm reading a Book."
Well, that the great thing about being where I am right now. The books I read apply directly to his creation.
[edit]
As for the rest of you, you'll have to wait till I get home.
If you discuss Evolution theory with them, you are playing the game on their terms, that is what creationists want. If we are to rid the world of fantasy theories, you need to go for the Jugular on Creation theory. If you start debating evolution, you are playing into their hands under their rules of deceit.
As we all know the theory of evolution doesn't say what created life, doesn't rule out god, doesn't produce elephants out of pigs - so even if every snippet of evolution theory proves to be wrong, it doesn't mean that creation theory is any more credible.
Dont be foolish enough to argue the finer points of evolution. Thats their strawman. Their rules. Their deception.
Make the rules. Scrutinize their theory. Test their dogma.
To any creationists about to post. I ask one new question.
"Before you cite evidence" - ask God "if it is really the truth". God doesn't lie. If I find proof that your claim is not true, I'll prove that you have not been talking to God. And that means you either talked to Satan, or fooled yourself.
I want to know what God says when you ask him.
Is the theory of evolution the most accurate explanation we have of how humankind found itself on the Earth?
Was their ever a global flood as described in the Book of Genesis?
Was Josephus' writing altered by the Catholic church to give credibility to Jesus' existance?
Did Christianity evolve from sun-worship?
Is arguing about the theory of evolution's credibility going to make my place in Heaven more secure.
Is MarcUK going to hell?
Originally posted by shetline
Oy, vey!
Closed systems vs. open systems. So many creationists still don't get it. Take that crash course yourself.
Now, a few inventive creationists do show some vague signs of understanding that, yes, order and complexity can and do increase locally in open systems with an influx of energy. How have they tried to cope with this? With a lot of BS about "information", trying to categorize "information" as something special, beyond mere "order" in a thermodynamic sense.
All of which comes down an unfounded layering of human concepts like purpose and intent on top of the idea of information.
And of course, no explanation is ever forthcoming about where The Big Guy gets all of His information. He, well, he just has it, that's all. He's God, he gets to have all the information he wants, by definition, thermodynamics be damned.
Stoo was right when he said that the earth (and therefore living systems) were not closed systems. However, his knowledge ends there.
All living systems are entropy pumps, meaning that they use disorder to make order. i.e. the coupling of ATP hyrolysis to make DNA phosphodiester bonds.
This is the key problem: Matter (and simple compounds) simply do not posess the ability to couple entropy. You can dump all of the energy you want into a system, and all you will succede in is making more disorder.
That, dear sirs, is one of the key problems facing evolutionists today. The sheer thermodynamics involved in generating systems as complex as a living cell are a major tripping stone.
You are misrepresenting the creationist statement. When we talk about systems that are able to couple thermodynamic reactions, we are saying that to do so, they must be more complex than simply unordered compounds and therefore contain information. As a matter of fact, Dean Kenyon, the author of the book "Biochemical Predestination" (which for years was pronounced as a "creationism killer") that attempted to explain how simple compounds could autocouple eventually reached the conclusion that the theories he described simply would not work. (and became a creationist)
I'm actually glad this thermodynamic section came up. Marc, if you really want a stone to bang your head against as a tough problem for evolutionists, this is definitely one of them.
Originally posted by tonton
Benzene, do this. Take a bowl and a bunch of marbles of the same size. Dump the marbles into the bowl.
Voila! A pattern! A design! The marbles line up perfectly!
Must be the work of God!
Ok, now take that bowl and shake vigorously.
Wow...just adding energy sure makes things a lot more ordered, doesn't it?
Originally posted by tonton
Benzene, do this. Take a bowl and a bunch of marbles of the same size. Dump the marbles into the bowl.
Voila! A pattern! A design! The marbles line up perfectly!
Must be the work of God!
I truly do dread posting in this thread, since I've seen how well we've all handled this before.
But your analogy has to be rebutted. It's insane, giving that the 'pattern' produced is utterly random.
Intelligent Design, from what I know of the theory, argues that the outcome of the earth's beginnings is too complex to have been the product of random chaos.
A better analogy would be throwing paint against a wall and ending up with the Mona Lisa, or a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747.
I give a lot of credit to Darwin, he worked with the data he had (and actually had very kind things to say about Christians.) But anyone who's read The Origin of Species knows that Darwin firmly believed the fossil record would firmly validate his theory, and it hasn't.
In Darwin's day, the intricacies of the human body were largely unknown on a molecular level. He figured (and stated) that the 'simple' processes that take place inside the cells of the human body were the product of random selection. But the whole science of DNA, and the Human Genome project has illuminated our thinking on this subject, and I doubt that Darwin would make many of the claims he did - had he known.
<Ducks and Runs for Cover...
Originally posted by benzene
This is the key problem: Matter (and simple compounds) simply do not posess the ability to couple entropy. You can dump all of the energy you want into a system, and all you will succede in is making more disorder.
That, dear sirs, is one of the key problems facing evolutionists today. The sheer thermodynamics involved in generating systems as complex as a living cell are a major tripping stone.
I know this is one of those talking points for creationists, but I honestly don't understand what thermodynamics has to do with evolution or natural selection. Organisms survive and reproduce, some more successfully than others, and so some some traits are passed down more frequently than others. Over an unimaginably long period of time, you get all your diversity in life.
Where is entropy or heat transfer or anything involving the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated, or even relevant at all? Aren't we just talking about variation and survival and death and reproduction?
Originally posted by tonton
It can! If the marbles were in a slight pile (but still in a pattern), after shaking, you might find that they've flattened out around the bowl a bit more. Or some of the heavier marbles (if they are of different weights) might have settled to the bottom.
The more you shake, the less random the arrangement.
Actually, the test would be to take a perfectly ordered system of these marbles at its potential energetic minimum and then shake... it will more often than not end in a state that is higher in potential energy than it begins -- the reason is that entropic benefit of not knowing where even two marbles are far outweighs any energetic benefit of putting everything in its single most stable conformation...
Period.