Creationism VS Public schools

[plindboe]

As far as free from external influences I'm referrieng to intelligible influence. For example a person gathering all of the carbon dioxide from an open coke bottle and phyiscally putting it back into the bottle or somebody stacking a deck of cards in perfect order instead of the cards stacking themsleves.

A seed has all of the genetic information contained in itself to become a fully formed tree. I believe all creatures are "programmed" with this genetic information since the creation. Now I believe within these "programmed" organisms there is absolutely room for variations but not in the since of a simple organism say a simple protein over millions of years( with entropy in mind) turning into the highly complex organism we see today. Even a simple protein by standard definitions is chalk full of complex "programming". For me to believe that all life today came from these huge genetic leaps and bounds just by statistics itself is very hard to believe.

"As far as free from external influences I'm referrieng to intelligible influence." This is the problem. The 2nd law isn't talking about intelligent influences, it's talking about energy and work. If you're changing it from "outside influences" to "intelligent influences", you're not talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics anymore.

Here's the 2nd law in action-> Life, seeds developing into trees, and evolution, is only possible due to the external influence of the Sun. Shut down the Sun, and the Earth will move towards a maximum of entropy.

In this last paragraph I'll just say that I find it peculiar when you first say that decreases in entropy are not possible, and hence evolution are ruled out. But then you turn around and say that decreases in entropy are possible with an outside intelligence. Do you not see the problem here? If God is responsible for everything in this universe, he's playing a role in evolution as well. So with your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and in your God paradigm, evolution shouldn't violate the 2nd law.

Peter

 

[Aceofspades77]

"As far as free from external influences I'm referring to intelligible influence."

This is the problem. The 2nd law isn't talking about intelligent influences, it's talking about energy and work. If you're changing it from "outside influences" to "intelligent influences", you're not talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics anymore"

Here I was clearing up what i meant by the idea of external influences. but seeing that you are reading into each word more than it needs I will be specific about everything I say. In simple terms to me the 2nd law is energy transfer and also the idea that when more constituents of any type of thing(matter, atoms, piece of dirt, a deck of cards, a doorknob...) are considered in the ongoing random processes or regularity of life that they will tend toward chaos and loss of energy. Of course we find systems/machines and working processes living off a certain amount of order which seem contradictory to the 2nd law. Well I believe that these systems were put forth by God to work together in life the way they need to. I don't believe that living organisms evolved but were created(with low entropic values intially) to work within other working systems. Within life and all matter systems, and living organisms the 2nd law still performs it's job within a non evolutionary framework to me.

"Here's the 2nd law in action-> Life, seeds developing into trees, and evolution, is only possible due to the external influence of the Sun. Shut down the Sun, and the Earth will move towards a maximum of entropy.

Here is the 2nd law in action. Heated radiation from the sun(not eternal, but created) finds it's way to the earth bumping into all the various particles the it can, losing energy and becoming more random losing energy on the way runs into atoms in the atmosphere, water droplets and perhaps maybe even finds it's way to a seed that absorbs the remaining energy left to sprout. The same 2nd law applies to the seed in the fact that it does not get that energy it will die. All the energy in the universe was created with hight entropic values to help sustain the living and working systems that have been created. Here we agree to an extent except the part where evolution is given any thought.

Here is not the 2nd law. In the blank randomness of spacetime there was no energy no nothing and then boom everything sprang to life. - a tad sarcastic

In this last paragraph I'll just say that I find it peculiar when you first say that decreases in entropy are not possible, and hence evolution are ruled out. But then you turn around and say that decreases in entropy are possible with an outside intelligence. Do you not see the problem here? If God is responsible for everything in this universe, he's playing a role in evolution as well. So with your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and in your God paradigm, evolution shouldn't violate the 2nd law.

I think you misunderstood the idea I was building up here. I'm sorry but I don't think I made myself clear. but then again I'm practicing stating my ideas and yes I'm not that great at it. God created mass organization and order and as time plays out his "machines" for sake of laziness are on a path to higher entropy and chaos. Do these machines have potential to last a long time? Yes. Forever? I don't believe so.(2nd law)

Now do we see these machines working off of one another? Absolutely.

 

[Molal]

MOD HAT​

This area is for specific challenges between specific parties.​

Thread moved to general creation - evolution debate forum.​

 

[plindboe]

Here I was clearing up what i meant by the idea of external influences. but seeing that you are reading into each word more than it needs I will be specific about everything I say. In simple terms to me the 2nd law is energy transfer and also the idea that when more constituents of any type of thing(matter, atoms, piece of dirt, a deck of cards, a doorknob...) are considered in the ongoing random processes or regularity of life that they will tend toward chaos and loss of energy.

Two points:
1.A very important thing you forgot to mention is that the system must be isolated (i.e. free from external influences). The Universe as a whole tends towards a maximum value of entropy, because it's isolated (i.e. free from external influences). The Earth is not isolated; it continuously receives massive amounts of energy from the Sun, and therefore the Earth doesn't tend towards max entropy.
2.There is no loss of energy, as that would be a violation of the first law. Rather energy is transformed over time from the most useful form (lowest entropy) to the most useless (highest entropy), which is heat.

Of course we find systems/machines and working processes living off a certain amount of order which seem contradictory to the 2nd law. Well I believe that these systems were put forth by God to work together in life the way they need to. I don't believe that living organisms evolved but were created(with low entropic values intially) to work within other working systems. Within life and all matter systems, and living organisms the 2nd law still performs it's job within a non evolutionary framework to me.

That is what you believe. Right now I'm interested in discussing the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, in other words what the science itself says, and not what you believe.

Here is the 2nd law in action. Heated radiation from the sun(not eternal, but created) finds it's way to the earth bumping into all the various particles the it can, losing energy and becoming more random losing energy on the way runs into atoms in the atmosphere, water droplets and perhaps maybe even finds it's way to a seed that absorbs the remaining energy left to sprout. The same 2nd law applies to the seed in the fact that it does not get that energy it will die. All the energy in the universe was created with hight entropic values to help sustain the living and working systems that have been created. Here we agree to an extent except the part where evolution is given any thought.

Three points:
1.First a nitpick. A seed doesn't photosynthesize. It's crammed with storage energy from the mother plant, which indirectly stems from photosynthesis.
2.Another nitpick: I think you meant "lowest" in this sentence: "All the energy in the universe was created with hight entropic values to help sustain the living and working systems that have been created"
3.Nitpicks aside, you haven't really provided an argument as to why a seed can increase in complexity but evolution can't.

Here is not the 2nd law. In the blank randomness of spacetime there was no energy no nothing and then boom everything sprang to life. - a tad sarcastic

There isn't any scientific theories stating that something came from nothing. Creationist web sites like to claim so, but I advice some skepticism. There's alot of misinformation out there, and creationist sites thrives on it.

I think you misunderstood the idea I was building up here. I'm sorry but I don't think I made myself clear. but then again I'm practicing stating my ideas and yes I'm not that great at it.

In science very precise language is required, and it is indeed difficult to always use exactly the right terms at the right places. I'm sure I make a few mistakes here and there as well. It's good you recognize that there is room for improvement.

The point I was making is that you seem to have a double standard. You want to rule out evolution because it states an increasing complexity over time, yet you accept that increases in complexity over time is possible in regards to other scenarios; as with seeds. If you feel I've misunderstood anything in the bolded sentence, perhaps you can point out exactly what.

God created mass organization and order and as time plays out his "machines" for sake of laziness are on a path to higher entropy and chaos. Do these machines have potential to last a long time? Yes. Forever? I don't believe so.(2nd law)

Life will indeed seize to exist on Earth one day, when the Sun runs out of nuclei to fuse, indeed in accordance with the 2nd law.

Peter

 

[Pesto]

Regarding the 2nd law discussion going on.

Ace, does biological reproduction violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in any way?

 

[Split Rock]

In simple terms to me the 2nd law is energy transfer and also the idea that when more constituents of any type of thing(matter, atoms, piece of dirt, a deck of cards, a doorknob...) are considered in the ongoing random processes or regularity of life that they will tend toward chaos and loss of energy. Of course we find systems/machines and working processes living off a certain amount of order which seem contradictory to the 2nd law. Well I believe that these systems were put forth by God to work together in life the way they need to. I don't believe that living organisms evolved but were created(with low entropic values intially) to work within other working systems. Within life and all matter systems, and living organisms the 2nd law still performs it's job within a non evolutionary framework to me.

I think you have some confused ideas concerning thermodynamics. First of all, living systems are in a state of non-equilibrium. They are also at a lower entropy state than the state into which they decay when the system is no longer living. However, I do not understand what you mean when you say that God created life with " low entropic values intially." Low compared to what? Also, what "systems" has God put into place as you suggested? What maintains them if God created them at a lower entropy state than could otherwise occur in nature?

Here is the 2nd law in action. Heated radiation from the sun(not eternal, but created) finds it's way to the earth bumping into all the various particles the it can, losing energy and becoming more random losing energy on the way runs into atoms in the atmosphere, water droplets and perhaps maybe even finds it's way to a seed that absorbs the remaining energy left to sprout. The same 2nd law applies to the seed in the fact that it does not get that energy it will die. All the energy in the universe was created with hight entropic values to help sustain the living and working systems that have been created. Here we agree to an extent except the part where evolution is given any thought.

A system can have a high or low state of entropy, but I do not understand what you mean when you say the energy of the universe was created with a high entropic value. Are you claiming it was all heat? If so, how did so much heat get converted to other forms of energy?

I think you misunderstood the idea I was building up here. I'm sorry but I don't think I made myself clear. but then again I'm practicing stating my ideas and yes I'm not that great at it. God created mass organization and order and as time plays out his "machines" for sake of laziness are on a path to higher entropy and chaos. Do these machines have potential to last a long time? Yes. Forever? I don't believe so.(2nd law)

Now do we see these machines working off of one another? Absolutely.

Yet we see the creation of localized low entropy systems all the time.. specifically those created directly, or indirectly, by the energy given off by our sun. Examples include: tornadoes, hurricanes, icicles, stalagmites, crystals, snowflakes, and yes, biological organisms.

What you do not seem to be grasping is that as long as individuals within a population survive and reproduce, that population will evolve. Name one required mechanism of evolution that violates the second law. Does reproduction violate the second law? Mutation? Natural Selection? Genetic Drift? Gene flow?

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally I would not object to the topic of ID being addressed in Science classes. But ID proponents would not be happy with how. E.g. an explaination of what science is, how the scientific method works and why ID can not be science.

Science is based on observation and experiments. Creation isn't science, it's spiritual. Creation doesn't belong in a science class, any more than math belongs in GYM class.

I agree with Ryan for the reason stated by Keith. I wouldn't trust our public education system to teach Creation. Especially if this forum is any indication of how it would be approached.

 

[Danyc]

I would like to reiterate an important point brought up by Split Rock:

What you do not seem to be grasping is that as long as individuals within a population survive and reproduce, that population will evolve. Name one required mechanism of evolution that violates the second law. Does reproduction violate the second law? Mutation? Natural Selection? Genetic Drift? Gene flow?

Arguing against evolution as a whole is not really what you should be doing; you need to disprove what it entails. Mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

Does the second law violate any of these?, you should be asking.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I agree with Ryan for the reason stated by Keith. I wouldn't trust our public education system to teach Creation. Especially if this forum is any indication of how it would be approached.

If ID can only be approached gently with kid gloves, it's got no place in the scientific community.

Bad ideas get shredded; only the ones that actually work get taught.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bad ideas get shredded; only the ones that actually work get taught.

The trouble is though, some "bad ideas" get espoused as great ideas, then get "shredded" after a few tombstones go up.

Like Vioxx and Thalidomide.

Had this Scientific Method you guys worship so much been as effective as you guys say it is, we should never have had these products available to us.

And please don't lecture me on the government and big pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't explain how these big pharmaceutical companies got the formula in the first place.

I'm sure this poison was first "discovered" under a microscope. Explain how it ever got out of the lab in the first place.

And while we're on the subject, go whitewash the graves of those who died from attacks by the Apis mellifera scutellata.

 

[Split Rock]

The trouble is though, some "bad ideas" get espoused as great ideas, then get "shredded" after a few tombstones go up.

Yeah, and Flood Geology is one of them. The problem is it got dig up again by Seventh Day Adventists and embrased by people like you.

Like Vioxx and Thalidomide.

Who says they don't do what they are supposed to do? Is there some basic flaw in our understanding of human biochemistry that these two drugs exposed?

Had this Scientific Method you guys worship so much been as effective as you guys say it is, we should never have had these products available to us.

What.. now we worship the scientific method? I thought we worshipped Nature? Make up your mind... what god do you want to make-up for us to worship to cover up the fact you worship a book written by Bronze-Age goat-herders?

And please don't lecture me on the government and big pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't explain how these big pharmaceutical companies got the formula in the first place.

What was wrong with the formula? Go ahead, AVET.. explain it to us...

I'm sure this poison was first "discovered" under a microscope. Explain how it ever got out of the lab in the first place.

Any substance is a "poison" when given in the proper amounts. Calling these chemicals "poison" is meaningless.

And while we're on the subject, go whitewash the graves of those who died from attacks by the Apis mellifera scutellata.

LOL! So one idiot lets out some bees due to stupidity and carelessness, and you convict all of science for it? What if he was keeping them because he thought they were pretty, and then let them out? Would that still be a condemnation of the scientific method?

 

[Split Rock]

And while we're on the subject, go whitewash the graves of those who died from attacks by the Apis mellifera scutellata.

The idiot who let out these bees was not a TRUE scientist. If he were, he would not have been so careless. Since he was not a TRUE scientist, his mistakes have no bearing on the scientific method.

The Score:
Crusades and Inquisition: 1
Africanized Bees and Drug Companies: 1

 

[Nathan Poe]

The trouble is though, some "bad ideas" get espoused as great ideas, then get "shredded" after a few tombstones go up.

Like Vioxx and Thalidomide.

And the global flood

Had this Scientific Method you guys worship so much been as effective as you guys say it is, we should never have had these products available to us.

Perhaps if the scientific method had been used, as opposed to get-rich-quick marketing, those products would've never been put on the shelves.

But if you're in favor of abandoning actual research in favor of blithely accepting whatever the local witchdoctor says out of his magic book, I'd say the cure is worse than the disease.

And please don't lecture me on the government and big pharmaceutical companies. That doesn't explain how these big pharmaceutical companies got the formula in the first place.

Having the formula is not the issue -- what to do with it (keep it in the lab or rush it to the patent office) is the issue.

I'm sure this poison was first "discovered" under a microscope. Explain how it ever got out of the lab in the first place.

I believe I just did. I'll explain it again if you missed it.

And while we're on the subject, go whitewash the graves of those who died from attacks by the Apis mellifera scutellata.

Sorry, too busy whitewashing the graves of those who died while the local pastor was laying on hands.

 

[Naraoia]

I'll leave Vioxx and Thalidomide for those who know the stories. A few general remarks, though:

First, science isn't about getting it 100% right the first time. That would hardly even be possible since humans aren't omnipotent. How could we have known how old the earth was, for example, before learning about radioactivity?

(Interestingly, The Origin of Species contains estimates of geological time that are now thought to be far too big: for example, in the chapter on the geological record Darwin estimates that more than 300 million years must have passed since the Late Cretaceous.)

Second, when we deal with complex things we don't fully understand it's very difficult to predict all the effects something can have on it, be it a drug on the human body or some intervention on an ecosystem.

Third, apparently God didn't get it right the first time either (not that this is an argument, but I thought it's worth reminding you). If he did then you wouldn't trust your "authorised translations" of the Bible more than the original, would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who says they don't do what they are supposed to do? Is there some basic flaw in our understanding of human biochemistry that these two drugs exposed?
...
What was wrong with the formula? Go ahead, AVET.. explain it to us...

If nothing is wrong with them, why were they taken off the market?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll leave Vioxx and Thalidomide for those who know the stories.

Those who knew the stories best are the ones who died putting their faith in the scientifically-produced products.

 

[Naraoia]

Those who knew the stories best are the ones who died putting their faith in the scientifically-produced products.

I still don't get why you conflate a few cases of sloppy profit-driven industrial R&D with the scientific method. There is good science and bad science in the same way there is good writing and bad writing. Does the existence of bad novels invalidate literature?

 

[Vene]

Hey, AV, have you ever taken aspirin? It was discovered using that terrible scientific method. How about any surgery? Were you given anesthetics? More science. Did you know that thalidomide is now used for treating leprosy? And that same evil science that developed vioxx is the same evil science that removed it from the market. And in both the cases if thalidomide and vioxx the issue wasn't that the science wasn't sound, it was that there wasn't enough performed to realize the danger.

 

[Split Rock]

If nothing is wrong with them, why were they taken off the market?

Why can't you tell us, since you brought these chemicals up in the first place?

In any case, they were not "taken off the market" because they didn't do what they were supposed to do, but because they had unforseen (and poorly screened) side-effects.

Again, how do either of these cases cast doubt on the usefulness or validity of the scientific method in understanding the physical world around us?

 

[seeker777]

I am a Canadian.
The creationists, or the "intelligent design theorists" have been pushing hard to get their beliefs taught in a public school setting, rather than keeping it to Xian schools, or Catholic ones.
I pay my taxes.
If one of my offspring is to attend a science class, I want them taught science.

And while we are on the subject of creation and kids.
I think that, like alcohol, and other controlled substances, or things of an adult nature..
That our children should only be allowed to attend a church, when they are old enough to make that decision on their own.
Your parents arent allowed to give you a beer, but they can drag you to a place, where a minister and such rages on about some scary things, that you probably shouldnt tell a six year old.
Double standards are amazing, which is why the theistic community receives so much criticism these days.

Bait.