Darwinian Sects, Lies and Evolutionists

[Trinai]

Evolution in no manner violates 2LoT, since 2LoT simply states that process can only happen, which increase the total entropy (amount of energy unavailable for work) of the universe. Since biological processes, including evolution, do happen they can in no manner be in volition of 2LoT. What allows biological processes to happen, you might ask? For the most part the energy output of the sun powers the biochemical reactions that keep things alive, reproducing, and evolving.

So, the chicken came before the egg?

No, wait, we came from very simple life. The sun would only power biochemical reactions if the organism could use the energy. And starting from the egg, that really doesn't seem too likely.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Trinai


So, the chicken came before the egg?

No, wait, we came from very simple life. The sun would only power biochemical reactions if the organism could use the energy. And starting from the egg, that really doesn't seem too likely.

The chicken/egg dilemma doesn't really come into this. The 2LoT is not violated by any findings in evolutionary science. That ends that.

The first organisms, as you point out, were probably not photosynthetic. Yet the sun most likely provided them energy, by providing the energy necessary for certain endergonic reactions that bound up said energy in sulphur and/or organic compounds.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Rufus, I may be mistaken on this, but I think that there is a law of local causality in physics (not just philosophy), though it is beyond me how it could be 'violated' by evolution.

 

[Morat]

  What? Like time's arrow? Cause preceeding effect? All that's thermodynamics anyways. For something to happen, there must be energy flow. Macroscopically, anyways.

   Luckily, we've got a great big honking thermal input (known hereafter as "The Sun") and a great big heat sink (known hereafter as "Space") so thermodynamics for life is pretty cut and dried.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Morat - if you were asking me about the law of local causality, the best I can do is tell you that, IIRC under the Copenhagen interpretation the EPR paradox seemed to upset people because it seemed to show how the principle of local causality could be violated. I know you already knew that, but maybe it would clear up where I would get the idea of a law of local causality in physics as opposed to philosophy..

 

[Morat]

  Everything I've seen on "Law of Causality" is that it's macroscopic cause-and-effect. That is, with perfect knowledge of the initial conditions, it is possibly to correctly predict the outcome. Time's arrow and a deterministic universe...

  As QM threw it out on it's ear over eighty years ago, I'm not sure why it's popping up here.

 

[Jerry Smith]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html

I'm not sure that it is lying on its ear quite yet, though I admit that it has suffered some scrapes and bruises. And I quite agree that the local causality law is a holdover from classical physics. Still it seems that the QP folks usually opt for an interpretation that is consistent with classical physics where possible and applicable (over one that isn't)...

(edited to replace the wrong word (inequality) with the right two (local causality))...

 

[chickenman]

cyclo, you have to be the most arrogant purveyor of hot air i've encountered. You presume to know why we do or do not believe in evolution. You presume to know, without any qualifications, that most biologists with them, are wrong. You presume, that we will simply just accept that you are right, because you have asserted it without any evidence.

Hot Air, and nothing more

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by npetreley; what I am not replying to will be omitted


http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html



It says they discovered the pelvis in 1996 and made that information public in 1998.

Wait a minute...wasn't the URL I posted an article dated in 1997? Before the data about the pelvis was published? So what are they talking about?

Gee, if you actually read what I wrote you might have noticed that I was mainly replying to an article written in September of 2001 and a radio spot from August 2001.    The former  claimed there was no pelvis and the latter claimed there most of the skeleton is missing even though it had been known for years not to be true.  Obviously 1997 publications by AiG can't be held responsible for information not availiable until 1998.    Publications in 2001 can be though. 

They're talking about ANOTHER ARTICLE ENTIRELY written BY SOMEONE ELSE. Sarfati, the author, neglected to mention that the pelvis was eventually found.

He did not neglect to mention it.  He outright claimed the pelvis was not found.

Ooh, but here's the sinister part.

Many files of Thewissen's pages on whale origins have June, 1999 time stamps (accessed by me on October 5, 2001).

And this proves exactly what? Many of my files of columns I wrote in the 1990s have time stamps of 2002 on them. Does that mean I wrote them in the future?

This claim is not what I claimed.  A timestamp reflect the last time the file in question was written to (assuming the computer's clock is accurate).  The 2002 timestamp is not evidence that an article was written in 2002.  The timestamp for my article would be less than a month old though it has not been modified since October 26.  The reason was a change in ISP that required the article be moved to another server. But a 1999 timestamp is evidence that the article existed in 1999.    Thewissen's website, which Sarfati cited, mentioned the find by 1999 at the latest.

And let's suppose that Sarfati actually did write what he did in 1999. Can anyone prove that Sarfati was actually aware of the findings published in 1998 and deliberately LIED about it? When were they published in 1998? Where? Is it reasonable to assume Sarfati was aware of the publication? Did anyone bother to ask him? Is it even remotely possible that he hadn't learned about it?

There was no claim that Sarfati was aware (or not aware) of the findings in September 2001 (not 1999).  Indeed my article explicately mentions that it is most likely that he was not aware of it. Either way, he screwed up.  That piece of information was not obscure.    In any event by the time my article was written this had become a common creationist claim that needed debunking.  (There were several debunkings before my article was written but to my knowledge only in discussion forums.)

It should be noted that since my article was written, AiG has added an note about the new bones (and a rather dismissive one at that).  I will have to add a note to article mentioning it.  The article also needs an updating to mention Thewissen's article in the December 2001 issue in BioScience which mentions in addition to the rather complete type specimen there now nearly 20 fragmentary finds.