The best evidence for Creationism

[Jamin4422]

I have to say that evolution is a fact.

It's a fact, it's a theory, it's also a myth. Evolution is lots of things to lots of different people because as you say a lot of energy has gone into it.

 

[cricket0206]

What is more plausible, the idea that everything came from nothing, that it was it's own cause, that life appeared spontaneously from non-life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and developed into increasingly more complex organisms despite the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, or that information (dna) came from an intelligent source, design came from a designer, or laws (natural laws and moral laws) came from a law giver.

Still the first one....

If something can't come from nothing, then where did God come from? And don't even bother saying "God has always been" because that is a very unconvincing argument. What about the fact that scientists have traced everyone on Earth back to one common female ancestor from Africa 400,000 years ago? Or that we share over 50% of our DNA with cats, dogs, dolphins, apes, and mice? How can bacteria become resistant to medicine if they don't change and evolve? Did God suddenly change them? Give me some plausible, solid evidence of creationism and I might consider it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It's a fact, it's a theory, it's also a myth. Evolution is lots of things to lots of different people because as you say a lot of energy has gone into it.

You might benefit from reading this book. It's a straightforward primer for people like you:

Why Evolution is True: Amazon.co.uk: Jerry A. Coyne: Books

 

[Gracchus]

What is more plausible, the idea that everything came from nothing, ...

That idea is not a scientific idea. It is a strawman contructed by theists.

... that it was it's own cause, ...

If you watch Schroedinger's cat walk past the slit in a fence, would you say that the head caused the legs, the torso and the tail? It is very common to artificially divide a single phenomenon into a "cause" and an "effect", but that is for discussion purposes. It is still just one thing.

... that life appeared spontaneously from non-life, ...

Life is a subset of chemistry. For convenience, we call some systems of chemical interaction "life".

... developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, ...

The chemical constituents were catalyzing their own replication before they could be called life.

... and developed into increasingly more complex organisms despite the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, ...

"Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.
First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved but the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero."

Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What in any of those laws demonstrates that the chemical processes we call life cannot occur naturally in accordance with the principles of chemistry and physics?

... or that information (dna) came from an intelligent source, ...

DNA is not information. It is a chemical. If you would like to discuss information theory ... Well, I know a bit about it. (And that was a pun! Get it?)

... design came from a designer, ...

We see patterns. Not all patterns are designed. some occur naturally.

... or laws (natural laws and moral laws) came from a law giver.

Natural "laws" are not passed by legislatures, or proclaimed by autocrats. They are not manufactured products of intelligence, they are discovered by observation. Unlike "laws" promulgated by such human entities, natural "laws" cannot be broken or they cease to be laws.

You are conflating two different definitions of a word, and I think you know that is a deliberate, but altogether ineffective attempt at obfuscation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What is more plausible, the idea that everything came from nothing, that it was it's own cause, that life appeared spontaneously from non-life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and developed into increasingly more complex organisms despite the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, or that information (dna) came from an intelligent source, design came from a designer, or laws (natural laws and moral laws) came from a law giver.

The former.

What is more plausible, the idea that everything came from nothing, that it was it's own cause, that life appeared spontaneously from non-life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and developed into increasingly more complex organisms

All of this is supported by the mathematics and the evidence, so it's absolutely more plausible.

despite the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics,

I'm a physicist, so I'm very interested to learn how these two laws pose a problem for evolution et al. Even if you ignore the rest of my post, please, elucidate on this.

or that information (dna) came from an intelligent source, design came from a designer, or laws (natural laws and moral laws) came from a law giver.

This is orders of magnitude less probable. It's an overly naive conclusion based in nothing more than semantics.

If DNA can be said to contain information, then it's information that can arise from wholly natural processes - we know this to be true, both theoretically (it's absolutely possible) and empirically (not only is it not impossible, it's been directly observed).

No instance of 'design' has ever been shown to require a designer, nor any 'law' to require a law-giver. Instances of design can be explained through natural processes - weathering, crystallisation, natural selection, etc - and the 'laws' of the world necessarily follow from the more underlying physics, from then nature of particle physics.

But by all means, prove otherwise.

 

[AECellini]

What is more plausible, the idea that everything came from nothing, that it was it's own cause, that life appeared spontaneously from non-life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and developed into increasingly more complex organisms despite the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, or that information (dna) came from an intelligent source, design came from a designer, or laws (natural laws and moral laws) came from a law giver.

okay, i'm going to help you out by deconstructing your argument. your first mistake was using your misunderstanding of the theory of evolution to create a straw man. second, you misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics. the law states "the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease" which means that the ability of an isolated system to do work decreases over time. this has nothing to do with order or disorder in the sense that you probably understand. the first law is another way of expressing the conservation of energy. neither of these laws are violated by evolution. the idea that god did everything you described leave some questions unanswered. where does god come from? if you say he has always existed, you're using an old argument that has no evidence to support it. you subtly argue in favor of objective morality, however because your source is god and there is no evidence of his/her/its existence, your argument for objective morality is rendered invalid.

 

[mathetes123]

The former.

All of this is supported by the mathematics and the evidence, so it's absolutely more plausible.


I'm a physicist, so I'm very interested to learn how these two laws pose a problem for evolution et al. Even if you ignore the rest of my post, please, elucidate on this.

This is orders of magnitude less probable. It's an overly naive conclusion based in nothing more than semantics.

If DNA can be said to contain information, then it's information that can arise from wholly natural processes - we know this to be true, both theoretically (it's absolutely possible) and empirically (not only is it not impossible, it's been directly observed).

No instance of 'design' has ever been shown to require a designer, nor any 'law' to require a law-giver. Instances of design can be explained through natural processes - weathering, crystallisation, natural selection, etc - and the 'laws' of the world necessarily follow from the more underlying physics, from then nature of particle physics.

But by all means, prove otherwise.

I would be interested to see the mathematics supporting evolution.

 

[The Engineer]

EDIT: I just read the post you replied to again, and now I know what you are talking about! You didn't ignore the whole post; rather, you ignored everything but a tiny little word that you ripped out of context while leaving the whole quote intact! That's almost worse. Especially because you ignored the red text that Wiccan Child told you not to ignore, of all things.

I think what Wiccan Child meant was that the probability for evolution to occur is not zero. You don't even need mathematic formulas for that; evolution has been observed, so the probability for it to happen can't be zero.

By the way, learn how to split a quote. It's not that hard.

 

[AECellini]

you never answered wiccan or me as to why the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are violated by evolution. i take it that you can't answer why.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would be interested to see the mathematics supporting evolution.

By all means. But first, answer my question. I'm a physicist, so I'm very interested to learn how these two laws pose a problem for evolution et al. Even if you ignore the rest of my post, please, elucidate on this.

 

[mathetes123]

By all means. But first, answer my question. I'm a physicist, so I'm very interested to learn how these two laws pose a problem for evolution et al. Even if you ignore the rest of my post, please, elucidate on this.

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? • ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[Guy1]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? • ChristianAnswers.Net

"In classical thermodynamics, the laws of thermodynamics are basic postulates applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer."

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system so as to result in the natural entropic dissolution of the system itself."

This isn't exactly classified information.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Mathetes... if someone told you this site is a repository of accurate scientific information, they have seriously misled you. Here's an example of just how wrong the website is:

"Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves."
​

This is an oversimplification of the second law. It doesn't say all natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. That's precisely what it doesn't say. Rather, it says that the average entropy (which isn't the same as decay or degeneration) of a closed system (not, you'll notice, and open one) tends to a maximum (not absolute uniformity). From the start, the website is completely and utterly wrong. Not in minor details, but in the core points.


Hilariously, the website actually unknowingly undermines its entire argument in the very next paragraph:

"It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time."
​

By conceding that order can increase, the completely destroy any hope of using the Second Law to disprove evolution. As we'll see, their argument relies on tricking people into thinking that evolution = an increase in complexity, that the second law = complexity can't increase, and that therefore evolution contradicts the second law. By conceding that order and complexity can increase, they undermine their entire argument. Saves me a lot of work

"However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world."
​

Here they make the same sleight-of-hand by conflating "the long run" with "the amount of time evolution is supposed to have happened" - those two quantities are not the same. The Sun has existed for 4.5 billion years, and will exist for billions more. Evolution has been going on for 3.5 billion years. Therefore, we have an obvious source of intense energy consistently heating the Earth for more than the required time period. So long as the Sun exists, entropy can decrease quite happily on Earth. Why? Because the Sun is increasing in entropy more than the Earth is decreasing.


The website, to its credit, tries to explain why the Sun doesn't count. Let's see how they do it:

"Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat? Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live"
​

Once more they use sleight-of-hand to obfuscate the issue: energy alone isn't enough, no. But the topic is that of thermodynamics, and as long as you have a source of energy, then the second law of thermodynamics is satisfied.

"What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process."
​

Once more they conflate various technical and colloquial terms to trick you into their view. This time, it's the word 'decay' - which can mean both biological rot and thermodynamic entropy. In this case, a dead plant decays only in the biological sense - thermodynamically, entropy is still further decreased because of the growth of things like bacteria. The plant doesn't wither and crumble for no reason - it's eaten and transformed into more complex structures. In a sterile environment, the dead plant would exist in perpetuity.



I'm curious if you'll actually read my critique of that website. I genuinely hope you do - not for my sake, but for yours. That website is dangerous, because it uses underhanded tricks and word-play to make it sound like their argument is air-tight. They carefully pick words with two meanings, one thermodynamic, one biological, such as 'decay' or 'degenerate', and then conflate them. What they're doing, is twisting and abusing genuine scientific knowledge to further their own religious and political agenda.

We can discuss the physics at length, to me thermodynamics is riveting. But I at least hope you can see why that website is not a good place to learn.

 

[WisdomTree]

Overall, I'm going to say the theories of evolution are the best evidence for creationism.

 

[serge546]

Overall, I'm going to say the theories of evolution are the best evidence for creationism.

Theories? As in plural? There is only one...

 

[Loudmouth]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? • ChristianAnswers.Net

From your website:

"Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7 "


You started life as a single cell, a fertilized egg. From that single cell you developed into a complex, multi-cellular human being in just 9 months. You became more complex and ordered. According to your creationist website, this is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your creationist source is so insanely wrong that it can not even handle embryonic development. Perhaps that should tell you something.

The fact of that matter is that if energy is put into a system it can become more ordered. That is exactly the case with life. Life takes in energy from the sun, either directly through photosynthesis or through trophic levels. Therefore, life can and does decrease in entropy.

 

[WisdomTree]

Theories? As in plural? There is only one...

There are more than one. The two I can think of are; gradualism, and punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are more than one. The two I can think of are; gradualism, and punctuated equilibrium.

Those are both a part of the theory of evolution. They are not separate theories of evolution. Both PE and gradualism both rely on evolutionary mechanisms to produce change over time.

 

[serge546]

Those are both a part of the theory of evolution. They are not separate theories of evolution. Both PE and gradualism both rely on evolutionary mechanisms to produce change over time.

You beat me to it, Loudmouth. Well explained.

 

[mathetes123]

From your website:

"Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7 "

You started life as a single cell, a fertilized egg. From that single cell you developed into a complex, multi-cellular human being in just 9 months. You became more complex and ordered. According to your creationist website, this is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Your creationist source is so insanely wrong that it can not even handle embryonic development. Perhaps that should tell you something.

The fact of that matter is that if energy is put into a system it can become more ordered. That is exactly the case with life. Life takes in energy from the sun, either directly through photosynthesis or through trophic levels. Therefore, life can and does decrease in entropy.

Energy by itself cannot create order.