How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[BobRyan]

Photosynthesis shows a decrease in entropy, going from carbon dioxide and water to carbohydrates (i.e. sugars). How do you explain this?

Only a small spectrum of the light in the immediate environment of the plant – can be used for photosynthesis – the rest is discarded.


So then - photosynthesis shows a "decrease in entropy" in what?? In "the plant"?? Or in "each reaction"? My argument is about 'each reaction' when the reaction and its immediate environment are taken into account.


In photosynthesis there is a cumulative generation of entropy, first during the photosynthesis of glucose, and then through the respiration of glucose back into carbon dioxide and water.

(not to mention all of the other processes of life which go into circulating glucose through the biome)

This guarantees that the entropy always increases. This relentless increase in entropy, along with the conservation of energy (in terms of heat, internal energy and work) make up the two "laws" of thermodynamics.
=======================================


For photosynthesis while the entropy of the system decreases, the corresponding increase in entropy of the surroundings (e.g. from heat created during photosynthesis and the breakdown of water to oxygen gas and protons) will make the overall change in entropy positive.

 

[The Cadet]

There is not one single reaction in the lab for which that statement is remotely true - and we both know it.

So now beyond being wrong, you're going to become belligerent and accuse others of lying. Look, you know nothing about thermodynamics, but you know less even than that about what goes on in the heads of the people around here. Nobody's called you a liar or called your motives into question; would you kindly not make such assumptions about others here?

But there has to be at least one person in the T.E. group that is "tolerant" of the inconvenient details being proclaimed by their own atheist evolutionist scientists.

Science is not a democracy, it is a strict meritocracy. If your statements hold up, then you could be Adolf Hitler and it wouldn't matter. Conversely, if they don't, you could be Jesus Christ and you'd still be laughed out of the room. So here's the question - why are you so unwilling to talk about the idea, and so focused on the person? There's nothing inconvenient about this statement; it's just nutty and wrong. In science, we don't tolerate ideas like that - once they've been proven wrong, they are discarded.

“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

Yes. I have done so at numerous times throughout the thread, each time offering a different thing that is true. Here, here's another one: ERV data shows conclusively that human DNA is more parsimonious with chimpanzee DNA than with Gorilla DNA. This is easy. The idea is trivially wrong, and it doesn't matter who said it. Now can we kindly move on?

You mean you find it "inconvenient"

No, I mean either Patterson was really really bad at his job, because a college drop-out who never specialized in evolution can answer the question he seemed so puzzled by, or you've got something about the quotation in question wrong. Personally, I consider the latter a wee bit more likely, and I think if you asked Patterson his opinion, you'd find that he didn't think highly of you:

Although Patterson did not support creationism, his work has been cited by creationists as evidence of the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.[6][7] In the second edition of Evolution (1999), Patterson stated that his remarks had been taken out of context:

Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context.[8]​

So I take it back. Someone has called you a liar in this debate. It was the guy you've been quoting as an authority on evolution.

If your "immediate environment" includes a fusion reaction 93 million miles away from earth - then you are 'remoting' on your internet connection a whole lot farther than I am.

Given that that fusion reactor has a constant tangible and visible effect on me and my surroundings, yeah, I'd say it counts as part of the "immediate environment". Of course, given that you haven't defined the term, we're all sort of left guessing as to what you mean.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is not one single reaction in the lab for which that statement is remotely true - and we both know it.

Living things going about their living and then dying represent an increase in entropy and I know it. I'm sorry that is over your head. Your are even a warm blooded mammal, constantly losing heat to the environment, and you don't realize how much entropy you are shedding as that happens.

Please understand that all your notions about entropy prohibiting evolution remain nonsense. It is because you haven't the basest notion of what entropy really is, why it increases, and what happens to it that allows us to still be alive.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.

That's an odd thing to say, since entropy is seen to increase whether or not you consider the sun itself.

I find you logic "illusive" just then.

How does that make sense as a response to my point that you don't need to factor in fusion reactions on the sun to each reaction you observe on earth before you can "observe" entropy increase instead of decrease as the overall result??

You do have to understand that energy is flowing into the earth from the sun no matter what you do to think about the entropy situation here.

Indeed - energy from other stars, galaxies -- the center of our own galaxy ... all not needed in these local equations to observe entropy in the reaction and its immediate environment. I think we can all see that point.

In point of fact, the great increase in entropy from millions of millions of living things DYING is part of the increase of entropy that outweighs all the "self organizing" patterns

There is not one single reaction in the lab for which that statement is remotely true - and we both know it.

Living things going about their living and then dying represent an increase in entropy and I know it.

True. But there is no such thing as a mythical self-organizing experiment in the lab being "compensated" or "balanced" by an animal dying on remote South Pacific island.

The point remains.

I'm sorry that is over your head.

T.E. ad hominem never stops not matter how counterfactual.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Cadet]

@BobRyan have you considered talking to a physicist about this kind of thing? Maybe having them explain thermodynamics to you? There are numerous forums chock-full of experts on the subject, any of which I'm sure would be perfectly willing to help correct your understanding. Maybe you live near a university, and can visit their local physics department. After they're done laughing, I'm sure someone will be able to help.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian reminds Bob that he dodged the question:
Let's start with this:
Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Hint: "Decrease in entropy" is not a required process for evolution. It can actually happen with an increase in entropy.

Let's see what you've got.

It is your "OWN" atheist evolutionist - Isaac Asimov

Nope. He's your guy. You brought him up. And he was an atheist, so not surprising you think he's on your side.

But no more dodging. Answer the question. If you can't even think of one thing, why should anyone believe you?

Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Hint: "Decrease in entropy" is not a required process for evolution. It can actually happen with an increase in entropy.

Let's see what you've got.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Anything that dies of old age.

Them old ADP molecules gave out and them telomeres quit working.

How's come evolution couldn't keep them going?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Anything that dies of old age.

Them old ADP molecules gave out and them telomeres quit working.

How's come evolution couldn't keep them going?

Uh . . . I know this will come as a shock to you . . . but when things die of old age, there is another generation carrying the species on. (unless, of course, the species went extinct.)

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Anything that dies of old age.

What makes you think dying of old age is prohibited by thermodynamics? What a weird idea!

Them old ADP molecules gave out and them telomeres quit working.

How's come evolution couldn't keep them going?

Once an organism passes reproductive age, there's no evolutionary advantage to keeping it alive. It only matters if it lives long enough to reproduce.

So do you have any necessary evolutionary process that is prohibited by thermodynamics? Bob seems to have bailed out on us. Not unexpected. He's been clotheslined by that question before.

Hint: no one has ever been able to present even one such process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh . . . I know this will come as a shock to you . . . but when things die of old age, there is another generation carrying the species on. (unless, of course, the species went extinct.)

But unless they reproduce, they are going to succumb to entropy.

It's basic physics.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes you think dying of old age is prohibited by thermodynamics?

It isn't.

If a species doesn't reproduce, it will succumb to thermodynamics.

 

[Hoghead1]

BobR, as has been pointed out, many of your remarks, such as above, are offensive and totally inappropriate in a theology discussion group.

 

[Hoghead1]

BobR, once again, your posts seem mostly inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But unless they reproduce, they are going to succumb to entropy.

It's basic physics.

I'm trying to figure out why you think this is an argument against evolution. Gimme a clue here.

 

[BobRyan]

BobR, once again, your posts seem mostly inflammatory rhetoric.

If you gloss over the actual details to a sufficient level - it might appear to you that way.

you have free will - you can choose to do that if you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's read on :

You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of the planet's existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms, vertebrates, mammals, finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?

The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed or the primeval slime, either. And in the billions of years it took for the human brain to develop, the increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required to develop the human brain.

If you knew it was a quote mine when you first used Asimov to support your argument you were lying, Asimov holds the opposite position to you. If you copied it from a creationist website you can be forgiven, you wouldn't be the first to be duped by their misinformation.

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy,

BobRyan said: ↑
True. But that would be "science" and "observed fact" --

Evolutionism is fiction.

So we expect Asimov to claim the exact opposite when it comes to blind faith evolutionism EVEN though "actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing.

Asimov writes:
You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception [to the second law]. Life on earth has
Steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate , more orderly , over the billions of years of the planet’s
existence. From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells,
worms, vertebrates , mammals , finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most
complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval
slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease in entropy) have taken place?
-- Isaac Asimov ,In the game of energy and thermodynamics, you can’t even break even, Smithsonian,August1970,p6.

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

How "odd" that atheists are not promoting it. Surely if atheists promoted it -we could all accept the citation.

in that quote I said --

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

next...

If you knew it was a quote mine when you first used Asimov to support your argument you were lying, Asimov holds the opposite position to you. If you copied it from a creationist website you can be forgiven, you wouldn't be the first to be duped by their misinformation.

Notice the times we get evol statements about "you are lying" or "creationists are stupid" etc?? This constant resort to the Rev 12 principle of ad hominem accusation is stock-and-trade evolutionism.

I'm sorry that is over your head.

T.E. ad hominem never stops not matter how counterfactual.

BobR, as has been pointed out, many of your remarks, such as above, are offensive and totally inappropriate in a theology discussion group.

Your focus on ad hominem instead of the details in the discussion -- noted.

 

[BobRyan]

But unless they reproduce, they are going to succumb to entropy.

It's basic physics.

A tree grows in spite of entropy that is seen to increase in every reaction that takes place during that lifetime of growth (when both the reaction and the immediate environment are taken into account). Living systems operate as an opposing force to entropy - but the increase in entropy is still seen in every reaction when also considering its immediate environment.

A tree decays because of entropy - that is seen to increase in every reaction that takes place during that lifetime of growth (when both the reaction and the immediate environment are taken into account) - when the living system itself is no longer viable - it can no longer produce the effect of matter in a state of decreasing entropy as compared to the "ground state" around it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

in that quote I said --

In that article Asimov "appeals to the sun god" to bail blind faith evolutionism out by promoting a lame argument of the form "there is a lot of entropy over there on the sun" - so that indeed a pile of dust just may "turn into a rabbit" because a "bomb blows up on the moon" (or in this case fusion reaction took place on the sun)

next...



Notice the times we get evol statements about "you are lying" or "creationists are stupid" etc?? This constant resort to the Rev 12 principle of ad hominem accusation is stock-and-trade evolutionism.



T.E. ad hominem never stops not matter how counterfactual.



Your focus on ad hominem instead of the details in the discussion -- noted.

Scientists assert that living things have been around for over a billion years, millions and millions of years living things living and dying . . . increasing entropy as they do that.

If all that entropy were accumulating on earth, we would be dead.

Please explain to us all your own understanding about what scientists say they think happened to all that excess entropy. You don't have to say you believe it . . . just explain what they say, whether or not you believe it. If you do this accurately, it will show a modicum of understanding entropy. Are you up to that challenge?

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian reminds Bob that he dodged the question:
Let's start with this:
Pick any process required for evolution to happen, and show how it is prohibited by thermodynamics.

Hint: "Decrease in entropy" is not a required process for evolution. It can actually happen with an increase in entropy.

Let's see what you've got.

BobRyan said: ↑
It is your "OWN" atheist evolutionist - Isaac Asimov

Nope. He's your guy.

Sorry to inform you that Asimov is evolutionist - as are you.

I am merely quoting from one of the well-known evolutionist high priests -- I can't be blamed for what evolutionists believe or teach. I am a Bible-believing Creationist.

This is irrefutable.

it is a well known design pattern.

 

[AV1611VET]

A tree grows in spite of entropy that is seen to increase in every reaction that takes place during that lifetime of growth (when both the reaction and the immediate environment are taken into account). Living systems operate as an opposing force to entropy - but the increase in entropy is still seen in every reaction when also considering its immediate environment.

A tree decays because of entropy - that is seen to increase in every reaction that takes place during that lifetime of growth (when both the reaction and the immediate environment are taken into account) - when the living system itself is no longer viable - it can no longer produce the effect of matter in a state of decreasing entropy as compared to the "ground state" around it.

Wut?