Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wdog · 01-02-2002, 02:15 PM

You betcha (did u know that people in wisconsin say that a lot?)

You may believe what you want to, the second law of thermodynamics makes no such statement about the origins of life. you would have to develope such an idea in precise mathematical terms and justify all your assumptions if you have any. there is nothing to prevent life self-organizing in the second law per se, you would have to prove it statistically impossible, which is how the second law is best expressed anyway. that proof would be questionable at best since you would have to assign some probabilities (density of states) that would have some degree of arbitrariness, but don't let me stop from doing some real science... go for it.

ps418 · 01-02-2002, 02:19 PM

You Betcha wrote:

You would also expect to have striking similarities if we were designed by the same creator.

We would expect "striking similarities" on the basis of what, precisely? Your opinion, or something else? Why would we "expect" God to create all life similarly rather than totally differently?

scigirl · 01-02-2002, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:
Sorry, I cannot speak for God as to why he did it that way.

And that is exactly why YEC is not scientific and never will be.

In order for an idea to be a scientific theory, it must be able to make predictions.

You claim that 'goddidit.' We claim that 'evolutiondidit.' Our theory will help us make predictions. For instance, scientists believed that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor long before we had the genetic data. Low and behold, when we got the genetic data--it fit with our hypothesis. We are more similar to chimps--both in genetic sequence and chromosome structure--than we are to dogs.
If scientists were so blatantly wrong, than why does the data keep fitting with evolution so nicely nearly every time?

Your theory makes no testable predictions about the genetic similarities between animals, and does not explain why we see the similarities as well as the differences.

Even if "goddidit," than why did "goddoit" in such a way to make it look like evolution occured? Why so many strange coincidences that just so happen to correlate well with evolution? Is God a liar or a deciever? Or perhaps Genesis 1 is simply a nice story.

scigirl

Orpheous99 · 01-02-2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by You Betcha:

I believe the wolf is a dog-kind.

Wrong. A dog is still a member of the wolf family. The only reason why domesticated dogs look so different is that we have bred certain features which we liked over the last 40000 years since we tamed them, but otherwise a DD is no different than a wolf and can still inter-breed.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Orpheous99 ]

hezekiah jones · 01-02-2002, 02:26 PM

I wonder: Has it occurred to any of these brain surgeons that any and all thermodynamic considerations have been taken into account by biologists?

Here are three reasonably accessible examples (real scientists, even):

Turner, D.H., and Bevilacqua, P.C., (1993) Thermodynamic considerations for evolution by RNA
The RNA World
Gesteland, R.F., and Atkins, J.F., editors
New York: Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Jou, D, and Llebot, J.E., Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Biological Processes
(1990 – Translation) Prentice Hall Advanced Reference Series

Blumenfeld, Lev A., and Tikhonov, Alexander N., Biophysical Thermodynamics of Intracellular Processes
(1994) Springer-Verlag New York

In fact the above-referenced works use thermodynamics to explain evolutionary processes. Just a thought.

Liquidrage · 01-02-2002, 02:35 PM

I wonder: Has it occurred to any of these brain surgeons that any and all thermodynamic considerations have been taken into account by biologists?

Obviously not.
Nor has it ever occured to any of them to learn what the 2nd law says as is and then formulate their own opinion.

Who started this 2nd law crap anyways?
Because it's also obvious that it's use as a debunker was never good to being with.
It's the equivalent of not believing planes can fly because if dropped from a tower they would fall. In otherwords, someone didn't get the whole story since it's obvious that the 2nd law doesn't rule out anything.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-03-2002, 01:50 AM

YouBetcha:

Quote:

There is only one creation chronology in Genesis. Genesis 2 only gives more description as to the creation of the Garden of Eden and not another creation chronology.

You still seem to be overlooking the irrefutable fact that the Genesis chronology is FALSE. The fossils are all in the wrong order!

Therefore creationism cannot be "scientific", because it is FALSE.

Sheesh...

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
<a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">Some more things</a>,

(This site is really great!)

Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas (a few beneficial mutations):

scigirl,

Nothing you have submitted shows how evolution is possible.

From what I can tell, all you have given us is adaptation in the same family of organisms.

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
If you bother to reply, I'll provide examples of beneficial mutations which create new information in humans in my next post.

scigirl

I am not interested in mutations that stay within the same family(humans) How about a mutation that changes an animal to another one?

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:


Then we would expect to see the same similarities between humans and frogs and bacteria.
But we don't.

No we wouldn't. That is your own rule that everything has to be 90% similar.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
And actually, what I would expect to find if everything were made from a creator would be that all living things are made of dirt.

Then where did the material come from which we are made?

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
Then let me be the first to politely tell you that what you know is wrong.

Evolution does not touch how life originated.
As I mentioned it picks up after life started.
How life started is a different debate that needs not include the word evolution.

If the universe and life did not evolve, then do you believe it was created?

01-02-2002, 02:25 PM	#74
Orpheous99 Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 1,258	Originally posted by You Betcha: I believe the wolf is a dog-kind. Wrong. A dog is still a member of the wolf family. The only reason why domesticated dogs look so different is that we have bred certain features which we liked over the last 40000 years since we tamed them, but otherwise a DD is no different than a wolf and can still inter-breed. [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Orpheous99 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2002, 02:15 PM	#71
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	You betcha (did u know that people in wisconsin say that a lot?) You may believe what you want to, the second law of thermodynamics makes no such statement about the origins of life. you would have to develope such an idea in precise mathematical terms and justify all your assumptions if you have any. there is nothing to prevent life self-organizing in the second law per se, you would have to prove it statistically impossible, which is how the second law is best expressed anyway. that proof would be questionable at best since you would have to assign some probabilities (density of states) that would have some degree of arbitrariness, but don't let me stop from doing some real science... go for it.

01-02-2002, 02:19 PM	#72
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	You Betcha wrote: You would also expect to have striking similarities if we were designed by the same creator. We would expect "striking similarities" on the basis of what, precisely? Your opinion, or something else? Why would we "expect" God to create all life similarly rather than totally differently?

01-02-2002, 02:26 PM	#75
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	I wonder: Has it occurred to any of these brain surgeons that any and all thermodynamic considerations have been taken into account by biologists? Here are three reasonably accessible examples (real scientists, even): Turner, D.H., and Bevilacqua, P.C., (1993) Thermodynamic considerations for evolution by RNA The RNA World Gesteland, R.F., and Atkins, J.F., editors New York: Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Jou, D, and Llebot, J.E., Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Biological Processes (1990 – Translation) Prentice Hall Advanced Reference Series Blumenfeld, Lev A., and Tikhonov, Alexander N., Biophysical Thermodynamics of Intracellular Processes (1994) Springer-Verlag New York In fact the above-referenced works use thermodynamics to explain evolutionary processes. Just a thought.

01-02-2002, 02:35 PM	#76
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	I wonder: Has it occurred to any of these brain surgeons that any and all thermodynamic considerations have been taken into account by biologists? Obviously not. Nor has it ever occured to any of them to learn what the 2nd law says as is and then formulate their own opinion. Who started this 2nd law crap anyways? Because it's also obvious that it's use as a debunker was never good to being with. It's the equivalent of not believing planes can fly because if dropped from a tower they would fall. In otherwords, someone didn't get the whole story since it's obvious that the 2nd law doesn't rule out anything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.