How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian reminds Bob that he dodged the question a second time:
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.

I am merely quoting...

Sorry, no bunny trails for you, today. Man up and show us just one example. If you can't, do the right thing, and admit it. Dodging the question is doing you no good at all.

Let's see what you've got.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It isn't.

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

And even if they do reproduce, they will succumb to thermodynamics. But so what?

 

[BobRyan]

v
Sorry, no bunny trails for you, today. Man up and show us just one example.

I can't be blamed for what your own atheist evolutionists claim about blind faith evolutionism.

the point remains.

And another --

Here is the "logically sound" argument that they make -


"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

 

[BobRyan]

Lest evolutionists labor on the delusion that it is only their own Patterson and Isaac Asimov that they must disavow in pursuit of blind faith eovlutionism:

Blind faith evolutionism relies on guesswork based on partial data and survives only in the absence of disconfirming data that has not yet come to light. Quite often that "disconfirming data" is in the form of "confirming a fraud" (even a 50 year long fraud as in the case of piltdown and as in the case of Marsh's horse fossil "contrived sequence").

Another example of the "methods" used to promote evolutionism is Dr Henry Osborn's 1922 "Nebraska man". (Dr Henry Fairfield Osborn was head of the department of paleontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, at the time). Osborn conducted a debate with William Jennings Bryan "in the press" and tried to undercut Bryan's arguments with what he (Osborn) called his "infinitesimal but irrefutable evidence that the man-apes wandered over from Asia into North America". The actual substance of that "irrefutable evidence" turned out to be nothing more than a kind of pig's tooth once it was exposed to the light of day!!.

Such is the temporary nature of evolutionist "victories".

But the "lesson" continues. For when Osborn discovered his blunder - he did not publish the embarrassing correction - he simply slinks back into silence on that argument hoping it will not be noticed.

Even more instructive - evolutionists to this very day appear to applaud the tactic of manipulating public perception of evolutionism by deceptively hiding the facts inconvenient to "stories easy enough to make up" in order to promote the cause of evolutionism as can be seen from the commentary below about the Osborn tactic of not admitting to his flawed, baseless argument against Bryan when it was known to him.

And what if Bryan had found out about the uncertain status of Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man)? If such doubts had been raised at the Scopes trial, it could have led to disastrous consequences for Scopes's defense and even for the public image of evolution. Clearly, it would have been best for Osborn to back off and stay out of reach in New York. So, having fulfilled his obligation to Scopes's defense with the July 12 piece in The New York Times, Osborn sat out the Scopes trial, not even submitting written testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Some Evangelicals may not be aware of such effort to hide truth - that are used in defense of blind faith evolutionism. But not all are so unaware of historic fact.

in Christ,

Bo

 

[BobRyan]

Karl Popper (atheist philosopher of science) wrote that natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing. When attacked by evolutionism’s devotees for saying what he said, Popper wrote in his own defense:

“some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring” citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson and others. (A Pocket Popper (1983) p242​

Following this, the journal "Nature" came out with an article titled “How True is the Theory of Evolution?” in which the editors interpreted Karl Popper as having said that Darwinism is “both metaphysical and unfalsifiable” and then confessed that “This is technically correct ”

(Nature: Vol 290. p 75)
And then later tried to recover by adding the lame observation “the theory of evolution is not entirely without empirical support”.

==========================

Hard to believe that Evangelicals would read what atheist evolutionists themselves are saying about blind faith evolutionism - and then knowingly abandon the Bible for it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian reminds Bob that he dodged the question a third time:
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: ↑

I can't be blamed for what your own...

Sorry, no bunny trails for you, today. Man up and show us just one example. If you can't, do the right thing, and admit it. Dodging the question is doing you no good at all.

C'mon. Can it be worse than having to dodge the question again, and again?

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, Bob's cut-and-paste job on Popper ignored what he actually said about it:

The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Dialectica, 32:339-355.

So much for the "unfalsible" claim.

It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.
Popper, K. R. 1981. Letter. New Scientist, 87:611.

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."
"Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32): 339–355.

And now Bob is going to show us that process, required for evolution, that is prohibited by thermodynamics. I hope. Seems as though he's having trouble finding one. How about it, Bob? Think you can do that now?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?

Bob Ryan is utterly unable to discuss what scientists are actually talking about when they mention entropy.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think that has been adequately demonstrated now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I can't be blamed for what your own atheist evolutionists claim about blind faith evolutionism.

the point remains.

And another --

Here is the "logically sound" argument that they make -


"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

Can I just mention that Dawkins is not Atheist Jesus? I hate that man and his lack of tact. Also, I am not obligated to defend the idiotic and malformed statements of fellow atheists.

Seriously, that so many view him as the representation of atheism feels about as acceptable to me as how most Christians on here would feel if every non-Christian had their views of their religion based on Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[The Barbarian]

Can I just mention that Dawkins is not Atheist Jesus? I hate that man and his lack of tact. Also, I am not obligated to defend the idiotic and malformed statements of fellow atheists.

It's just an attempt to deflect the question. Bob has realized that his "thermodynamics" objection is empty, and that there is no process required for evolution that is prohibited by anything in thermodynamics. So he's tossing up whatever he can to cover up.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that he will attempt to answer the question, but given the behavior noted above, it doesn't seem very likely, does it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's just an attempt to deflect the question. Bob has realized that his "thermodynamics" objection is empty, and that there is no process required for evolution that is prohibited by anything in thermodynamics. So he's tossing up whatever he can to cover up.

I'm not ruling out the possibility that he will attempt to answer the question, but given the behavior noted above, it doesn't seem very likely, does it?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt still. I find that showing a willingness to listen to people makes them more likely to make well thought out arguments.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt still. I find that showing a willingness to listen to people makes them more likely to make well thought out arguments.

In some cases, the difficulty is like trying to multiply a great big "enhancement fraction" on a flat zero . . . it leaves the result to be still zero.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In some cases, the difficulty is like trying to multiply a great big "enhancement fraction" on a flat zero . . . it leaves the result to be still zero.

Perhaps, but no harm comes in trying.

 

[The Cadet]

Karl Popper (atheist philosopher of science) wrote that natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing. When attacked by evolutionism’s devotees for saying what he said, Popper wrote in his own defense:

“some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring” citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson and others. (A Pocket Popper (1983) p242

I corrected you on this earlier in the thread: Popper was wrong, and he admitted as much himself. Why would you continue to knowingly propagate this falsehood? Isn't it a violation of your religion to bear false witness?

Also, please address @The Barbarian's question. If you're actually interested in the science, that is.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The photons aren't 93 million miles away. They are here.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Where does that light come from?

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.

This one:

This guarantees that the entropy always increases.

You put a lot of effort into being wrong.

Without photosynthesis, there would no carbohydrates at all. Since there are carbohydrates present on Earth, there is an overall decrease in entropy due to photosynthesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't be blamed for what your own atheist evolutionists claim about blind faith evolutionism.

And once again, we see the use of insults in the place of science, math, reason, logic and evidence.

Perhaps if more of us ask, it will help.

What step in evolution are you saying can't happen because of thermodynamics? Here are list of mechanisms. Please tell us which ones are prevented by thermodynamics:

Natural selection, mutation, speciation, and neutral drift.

 

[BobRyan]

Where does that light come from?

Photons of varying wavelength are emitted due to a number of reasons.

Were you thinking that nuclear fusion is the only time a photon is produced???

You put a lot of effort into being wrong.

Without photosynthesis, there would no carbohydrates at all. yet at every step if you take into account the reaction and its immediate environment - entropy is increased not decreased.

 

[BobRyan]

Asimov:

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.

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. Entropy increases. Living (not just the sun) causes entropy to increase. 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.

What step in evolution are you saying can't happen because of thermodynamics?

I think you would love to make me the author of everything your own atheist Asimov says.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.