Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[JonFromMinnesota]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. The earth receives energy from the sun. This argument has been debunked on multiple occasions. Stop using it. You know that it's wrong.

 

[mickiio]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. The earth receives energy from the sun. This argument has been debunked on multiple occasions. Stop using it. You know that it's wrong.

Uhhh no. Your wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uhhh no. Your wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

And the Earth is not an isolated system. The Earth is for all practical purposes a closed system. That means that matter cannot enter and leave, but energy is free to enter and leave. Applying isolated system claims to the Earth is an error.

 

[bhsmte]

Uhhh no. Your wrong. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

Even creationist web sites are telling people to not use the 2nd law of thermodynamics when they are debating, because it is so easily debunked.

You really need to get up to speed.

 

[mickiio]

If you take a bike and leave it outside in the rain, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies. You get a rusted, bike. It does not go the other way. It does not become new. The second law still applies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you take a bike and leave it outside in the rain, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies. You get a rusted, bike. It does not go the other way. It does not become new. The second law still applies.

That still has no application to the theory of evolution, at least as you have been trying to use it. Yes, chemical reactions tend to go in specific directions, guided by the SLoT. The SLoT makes life itself possible. The problem is that the misinterpretation of the SLoT that creationists use usually makes life itself impossible. Since we can see life all around us we know that interpretation is wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you willing to write a paper on this subject and submit it to a reputable scientific publication?

Papers have been written. Simply peruse the UC-Berkeley site and the BioLogos.org site and you'll quickly see two, disparate, views on the how/process of evolution.

For example, one evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"The species is the “working unit” of evolution. A species is a collection of populations, all genetically related. These populations are composed of individual organisms that are capable of breeding with each other to produce fertile offspring, thus passing genetic information from one generation to the next. Through descent with modification (mutation and natural selection) a population will accumulate genetic changes until it is so different from other populations of the parent species that interbreeding is no longer possible. In this way, a new species has formed. Speciation is the term biologists and paleontologists use to describe such an event."

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/foundation_life3.html
​

While another evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God"

https://biologos.org/about-us/
​

The common thread is that they're both faith-based views. Of course you also have micro-evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Papers have been written. Simply peruse the UC-Berkeley site and the BioLogos.org site and you'll quickly see two, disparate, views on the how/process of evolution.

For example, one evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"The species is the “working unit” of evolution. A species is a collection of populations, all genetically related. These populations are composed of individual organisms that are capable of breeding with each other to produce fertile offspring, thus passing genetic information from one generation to the next. Through descent with modification (mutation and natural selection) a population will accumulate genetic changes until it is so different from other populations of the parent species that interbreeding is no longer possible. In this way, a new species has formed. Speciation is the term biologists and paleontologists use to describe such an event."

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/foundation_life3.html
​

While another evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God"

https://biologos.org/about-us/
​

The common thread is that they're both faith-based views. Of course you also have micro-evolution.

Wrong. The only thing faith based at biologos is their belief in God. The rest is evidence based. But like most creationists you have no understanding of the nature of evidence and the mere thought of it seems to scare the pants off of you.

And the Biologos site said nothing about the "how" of evolution in that short quote. They merely state that they accept the fact of evolution and that God began the process of evolution. There is no "how" there at all.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Papers have been written.

Cite one paper in a reputable scientific journal that supports your views of evolution and rejects evolution on a macro scale.

.

"The species is the “working unit” of evolution. A species is a collection of populations, all genetically related. These populations are composed of individual organisms that are capable of breeding with each other to produce fertile offspring, thus passing genetic information from one generation to the next. Through descent with modification (mutation and natural selection) a population will accumulate genetic changes until it is so different from other populations of the parent species that interbreeding is no longer possible. In this way, a new species has formed. Speciation is the term biologists and paleontologists use to describe such an event."

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/foundation_life3.html
​

While another evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God"

https://biologos.org/about-us/
​

The common thread is that they're both faith-based views. Of course you also have micro-evolution.

Why are you referencing sources that don't agree with you?
The only faith based would be biologos with their belief in God. They are still studying EVIDENCE for evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong. The only thing faith based at biologos is their belief in God. The rest is evidence based.

No it's not. I've spent the entiretly of this thread asking for evidnece, based on the scientific method, for the how/process whereby an alleged single life form (unknown) produced pine trees and humans. So far, nothing.

But like most creationists you have no understanding of the nature of evidence and the mere thought of it seems to scare the pants off of you.

This is a typical response from you, completely worthless and meaningless with absolutely no evidence.

And the Biologos site said nothing about the "how" of evolution in that short quote. They merely state that they accept the fact of evolution and that God began the process of evolution. There is no "how" there at all.

From the BioLogos website....

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."

​

 

[bhsmte]

Cite one paper in a reputable scientific journal that supports your views of evolution and rejects evolution on a macro scale.




Why are you referencing sources that don't agree with you?
The only faith based would be biologos with their belief in God. They are still studying EVIDENCE for evolution.

Referencing sources that don't agree with them, is a common problem with some.

 

[justlookinla]

Cite one paper in a reputable scientific journal that supports your views of evolution and rejects evolution on a macro scale.

Can't be done. My view, as with the macro view of the Darwinists, is a faith-based view. And as this thread has shown, there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the how/process of the Darwinist view of evolution.

Why are you referencing sources that don't agree with you?
The only faith based would be biologos with their belief in God. They are still studying EVIDENCE for evolution.

Just pointing out two, disparate, faith-based views on evolution.

 

[ecco]

Yes, I believe in God and Genesis, however macroevolution does not follow the laws of sciences. It does not follow the Law of Cause and Effect, The Second Law of Thermodynamics nor probabilities. In essence it should be thrown out. But because it is heralded by some as the best thing since apple pie it has not been.

You are just like every other creationist. Solely because of your belief in genesis, you must disbelieve in common descent. You can find no scientific evidence for creationism, so you try to find holes in common descent. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics"? Really?

 

[ecco]

If you take a bike and leave it outside in the rain, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies. You get a rusted, bike. It does not go the other way. It does not become new. The second law still applies.

When acorns fall from an oak tree, some of them become oak trees.

 

[justlookinla]

When acorns fall from an oak tree, some of them become oak trees.

A million years from now, some acorns may have tiny little feet too? Amirite?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it's not. I've spent the entiretly of this thread asking for evidnece, based on the scientific method, for the how/process whereby an alleged single life form (unknown) produced pine trees and humans. So far, nothing.

Wrong. You have both been given evidence and shown that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. I have offered to help you understand the concept of evidence but you run away from that offer.

This is a typical response from you, completely worthless and meaningless with absolutely no evidence.

No, it is a simple fact. Everyone that understands the nature of evidence can see that it is true. You supplied the evidence that proves that I am correct.

From the BioLogos website....

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God."

​

And where has anyone claimed that "evolution replaces God". We can show how evolution shows that God did not need to have a direct hand in the diversity of life, but that does not "replace God". It looks like they were setting up a bit of a strawman at the end of that phrase.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong. You have both been given evidence and shown that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. I have offered to help you understand the concept of evidence but you run away from that offer.

And yet another meaningless, empty and worthless claim from you.

No, it is a simple fact. Everyone that understands the nature of evidence can see that it is true. You supplied the evidence that proves that I am correct.

Nothing but meaningless, empty and worthless claims.

And where has anyone claimed that "evolution replaces God".

When the claim is made that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today, that eliminates God from the equation.

We can show how evolution shows that God did not need to have a direct hand in the diversity of life, but that does not "replace God". It looks like they were setting up a bit of a strawman at the end of that phrase.

You can't show, based on the scientific method, that the diversity of life is solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms. That view is a faith-based view.

 

[mickiio]

Wrong. You have both been given evidence and shown that you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. I have offered to help you understand the concept of evidence but you run away from that offer.

Misinterpretation of the evidence. Remember we have no problem with the evidence -- it's your interpretation of it that is lacking.

And where has anyone claimed that "evolution replaces God". We can show how evolution shows that God did not need to have a direct hand in the diversity of life, but that does not "replace God". It looks like they were setting up a bit of a strawman at the end of that phrase.

It is a rejection of God as Creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Misinterpretation of the evidence. Remember we have no problem with the evidence -- it's your interpretation of it that is lacking.

No, their is no "misinterpretation". The evidence out there supports only one side, and it is not yours. In fact scientists that are creationists know this.

It is a rejection of God as Creator.

No, it is simply a "rejection" of your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[ecco]

Papers have been written. Simply peruse the UC-Berkeley site and the BioLogos.org site and you'll quickly see two, disparate, views on the how/process of evolution.

For example, one evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"The species is the “working unit” of evolution. A species is a collection of populations, all genetically related. These populations are composed of individual organisms that are capable of breeding with each other to produce fertile offspring, thus passing genetic information from one generation to the next. Through descent with modification (mutation and natural selection) a population will accumulate genetic changes until it is so different from other populations of the parent species that interbreeding is no longer possible. In this way, a new species has formed. Speciation is the term biologists and paleontologists use to describe such an event."

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/foundation_life3.html
​

While another evolutionary camp makes these claims...

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

"We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God"

https://biologos.org/about-us/
​

The common thread is that they're both faith-based views. Of course you also have micro-evolution.

Since you want to use your own, incorrect, definition of evolution, I'll just use Common Descent to avoid any confusion.

One of your links says god ordained Common Descent. The other does not mention god.

Both agree that humans and whales and dinosaurs and trees all had a common ancestor.

You do not believe the shared conclusions of either of these organizations.

So far, in this entire thread, all you have done is nitpick about advances in scientific knowledge and point out differences in the beliefs of people regarding some of the mechanisms of Common Descent.



Why don't you state your beliefs on the origin of humans and provide some evidence to support your beliefs?