Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[Dannager]

http://darwinismrefuted.com

introducing: Turkey's Islamic Henry Morris, Harun Yahya

there is no science there.

Ewww, he used the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument. I thought you said this site has valid critiques on evolutionary theory, rambot.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

rambot: For clarification, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a totally isolated system increases overtime.

Since Earth is not a totally isolated system because of the massive influx of energy provided by the sun, this guy both lost the argument and his credibility for repeating the oldest and worst trick in the book.

 

[shinbits]

Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? Is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?

What would count as evidence for a devine entinty? If the general concensus is that science cannot prove or disprove God, what can be given?

As a side note, I read in another thread that 'The Big Bang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, pæleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.

I don't know about "fail terribly".....but the Big Bang doesn't give any evidence for evolution of a universe. They can give evidence of age like dopler shift, but not evidence that it set evolution in motion.

Biological evolution fails in three ways: it's lack of transitionals, and the fact the most "transitionals" found don't show a pattern from a simple to complex being. At best, there is only a "smaller" to a "bigger" creature.

Third, "transitionals" are extremely unuseful in showing that an entire population had evolved. We know that organisms, especially humans, can be born with deformities, or simply an unusual build for it's type of population that it a one time occurance and doesn't get passed on.
"Transitionals" found are usually just individual fossils, and often, not always, are not accompanied by more discoveries of fossils like it.

While any one of these may be able to be explained away, the combination of these things together make evolution hard to believe.

As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.

Radio-metric dating relies on a ratio of an element to the ratio of what it decays to. This is unreliable, because we have to make assumptions, like the "parent" element which decays was pure. We also have to assume that things like water didn't wash similar elements into or out of the rocks. This factor would greatly mess up the "correct" age.

There's also the factor that some rocks may naturally contain either the initial element, or the element that it decays into. This would also make radio-metric dating unreliable.

 

[shinbits]

rambot: For clarification, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a totally isolated system increases overtime.

Since Earth is not a totally isolated system because of the massive influx of energy provided by the sun, this guy both lost the argument and his credibility for repeating the oldest and worst trick in the book.

There is no such thing as a totally isolated system in the entire universe. So this can't be what u say it's about.

The universe itself, theoretically, might be an isolated system; but inside the universe, such a thing doesn't exist.

 

[just another skeptic]

There is no such thing as a totally isolated system in the entire universe. So this can't be what u say it's about.

The universe itself, theoretically, might be an isolated system; but inside the universe, such a thing doesn't exist.

It´s right that there is no ideally closed system, but to do the math it´s enough to define a system as closed, like adiabatic thermodynamic machines (hope that´s the correct translation) or chemical reactions, although they are not ideally closed. And the law applies to ideally closed systems and irreversible processes for which the entropy always increases (there are a lot of mechanisms to decrease the entropy, but they all need the influx of energy = not closed system). The earth is definitely not a closed system.

 

[TeddyKGB]

There is no such thing as a totally isolated system in the entire universe. So this can't be what u say it's about.

The universe itself, theoretically, might be an isolated system; but inside the universe, such a thing doesn't exist.

It doesn't matter. The second law describes a tendency. A closed system can undergo local or momentary reductions in entropy, but given an arbitrarily large amount of time, entropy will reach a maximum.

 

[shinbits]

It doesn't matter. The second law describes a tendency. A closed system can undergo local or momentary reductions in entropy, but given an arbitrarily large amount of time, entropy will reach a maximum.

Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?

Because by definition open systems are able to receive energy form an outside source.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?

An open system is really just an area of local entropy decrease within a larger closed system. We can call the Earth's surface an "open system" but what we really mean is that the Earth's surface is capable of entropy decrease because of the energy input, and corresponding entropy increase, provided by the sun. Thus, Earth + Sol is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system in which total entropy is moving toward a maximum.

 

[just another skeptic]

Why doesn't this "tendency" apply to open systems?

I agree with the two previous replies. To say it in other words: To have an open system means you exchange energy with the surroundings. If you release energy, the local system alsways increases it´s entropy, otherwise you have a perpetuum mobile. Our sun-earth system is such an open system. If you receive energy from the surroundings, the energy must go somewhere and performs work in the system (like entropy decrease, chemical reactions etc.). Ilya Prigogine received 1977 the nobel price for chemistry for his work on "dissipative structures" in which he described the far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics in such structures (like the earth).

 

[shinbits]

I agree with the two previous replies. To say it in other words: To have an open system means you exchange energy with the surroundings. If you release energy, the local system alsways increases it´s entropy, otherwise you have a perpetuum mobile. Our sun-earth system is such an open system. If you receive energy from the surroundings, the energy must go somewhere and performs work in the system (like entropy decrease, chemical reactions etc.). Ilya Prigogine received 1977 the nobel price for chemistry for his work on "dissipative structures" in which he described the far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics in such structures (like the earth).

I agree your posts, and everyone else's.

But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I agree your posts, and everyone else's.

But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.

The "disorder" implicit in the second law is not what we classically consider disorder. The disorder that is involved is actually the dispersal of energy. The classical second law stated in a simple a form as I can manage says that there is a quantity called entropy which can be defined. The change in entropy in a reversible transition between equilibrium states can be calculated by integrating the change in heat divided by the temperature. If a system is taken through a cycle to return to its initial state through totally reversible processes the total entropy change of the system and its surroundings is 0. In irreversible transitions the total entropy change is greater than zero. Since all transitions are irreversible to some extent the entropy of the system and its surrounding must increase in all real processes. This does not mean that order can not occur spontaneously in systems that are not at equilibrium. A well known example is the Benard instability where ordered hexagonal columns of flow arise in polymer systems under a temparature gradient.

While creationists sometime claim that evolution violates the second law they are never able to show exactly how it violates the second law. For much more detail on the subject you can try to follow my debate with Jerry Don Bauer on TWeb here. The last part of my closing statement is below.

Those who claim to be able to show that macroevolution violates the second law of thermodynamics must meet the challenge implicit in the following question.

“What step, required for macroevolution, decreases the entropy of both the evolving system and its surroundings each and every time it might occur? “

If no step in a process violates the second law then that process is compatible with the second law.

Do random mutations violate the 2nd law? Does natural selection? Does genetic drift? Does exon shuffling? How about gene duplication? How about chromosomal segmental duplication? What about the chromosome fusion that may have occurred in the evolution of humans and other great apes from a common ancestor?


Is there any process postulated to be required for macroevolution that is known to violate the second law each and every time it might occur? Do any of the above processes have the sole result of transferring heat from a cold to a hot reservoir? Do any of these processes concentrate energy in one place without resulting in it being more dispersed somewhere else?

Thermodynamics is a quantitative science so the answer should be quantitative. Vague generalities about increases in complexity do not constitute proof that macroevolution is incompatible with the second law. No quantitative answer has ever been provided to this question.

This debate is over and it is clear that Jerry Don lost. In fact he lost the debate in his second post when he admitted that none of the steps required for modern apes an humans to evolve from common ancestors violate the second law.

Macroevolution can not be shown to violate the second law and thus can be considered to be compatible with the second law.

Frumious

 

[just another skeptic]

I agree your posts, and everyone else's.

But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.

Because in open systems you have an energy exchange with the surroundings.
If that answer doesn´t satisfy you, I don´t understand what it is you are asking for , sorry.

 

[TeddyKGB]

But I guess what I was trying to ask, is why the "tendency toward disorder" doesn't apply to open to open systems.

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been. An "open system" receives energy from an external source sufficient to overcome local entropy.

 

[shinbits]

The "disorder" implicit in the second law is not what we classically consider disorder. The disorder that is involved is actually the dispersal of energy.

This alone answers my question completely, even though I did read the rest of your post.

Thanx.

As far as the question raised in the OP, and think my post in the previous page should answer it.

 

[shinbits]

I'll just post this one more time so it doesn't get missed:

Is there any evidence that the Universe was created by a divine entity? is there any evidence that this is the same Divinity as a particular terrestrial monotheism, namely Christianity?

What would count as evidence for a devine entinty? If the general concensus is that science cannot prove or disprove God, what can be given?

As a side not, I read in another thread that 'The BigBang and Evolution hypotheses fail terribly" in terms of evidence. Where do either fail? We have doppler shift, background microwave radiation, the fossil record, paeleogeographical and geological dating evidences, etc etc.

I don't know about "fail terribly".....but the Big Bang doesn't give any evidence for evolution of a universe. They can give evidence of age like dopler shift, but not evidence that it set evolution in motion.

Biological evolution fails in three ways: it's lack of transitionals, and the fact the most "transitionals" found don't show a pattern from a simple to complex being. At best, there is only a "smaller" to a "bigger" creature.

Third, "transitionals" are extremely unuseful in showing that an entire population had evolved. We know that organisms, especially humans, can be born with deformities, or simply an unusual build for it's type of population that it a one time occurance and doesn't get passed on.
"Transitionals" found are usually just individual fossils, and often, not always, are not accompanied by more discoveries of fossils like it.

While any one of these may be able to be explained away, the combination of these things together make evolution hard to believe.

As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.

Radio-metric dating relies on a ratio of an element to the ratio of what it decays to. This is unreliable, because we have to make assumptions, like the "parent" element which decays was pure. We also have to assume that things like water didn't wash similar elements into or out of the rocks. This factor would greatly mess up the "correct" age.

There's also the factor that some rocks may naturally contain either the initial element, or the element that it decays into. This would also make radio-metric dating unreliable.

 

[notto]

As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.

This is completely untrue and shows you lack of knowledge about how these things are actually done.

Carbon levels are calibrated against samples of known age and the scientists know that the atmosphere wasn't always the same. We know this by looking at samples of known age. This is a well documented, tested, and accepted process. That you don't understand it is obvious and basically what you said in this part is a lie.

How can you spread misinformation like this? You should really read up on the topics you are making claims about. Why should the rest of your assertions be trusted if you can't even be trusted to get the most basic things correct? Your ignorance is showing and your credibility is declining.

 

[shinbits]

This is completely untrue and shows you lack of knowledge about how these things are actually done.

Excuse me? C-14 dating is only reliable for things up to 60,000 years old. And that's only if the assumptions made are correct.

U don't know this by now?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Biological evolution fails in three ways: it's lack of transitionals, and the fact the most "transitionals" found don't show a pattern from a simple to complex being. At best, there is only a "smaller" to a "bigger" creature.

The first is outright false; there's a wealth of transitionals in the hominin lineage alone. The second is false, contradictory, and ridiculous; one of the creationist staples is that the Cambrian Explosion - the "sudden appearance" of complex organisms - can't be explained by gradualistic evolution!

Third, "transitionals" are extremely unuseful in showing that an entire population had evolved. We know that organisms, especially humans, can be born with deformities, or simply an unusual build for it's type of population that it a one time occurance and doesn't get passed on.
"Transitionals" found are usually just individual fossils, and often, not always, are not accompanied by more discoveries of fossils like it.

Says who, you? How many Archaeopteryx fossils exist? How many A. afarensis fossils?

While any one of these may be able to be explained away, the combination of these things together make evolution hard to believe.

Nothing need be "explained away." Your assertions are simply false.

As far as dating, we know thatwith carbon dating, it can only date back in thousands of years, not millions. Even in this case, there are still assumptions that must be made, like the atmosphere was always the same, which isn't a logical assumption if one believes the earth evolved over time into what it is today.

No one assumes the "atmosphere was always the same."

Radio-metric dating relies on a ratio of an element to the ratio of what it decays to. This is unreliable, because we have to make assumptions, like the "parent" element which decays was pure.

Elements are pure by definition.

We also have to assume that things like water didn't wash similar elements into or out of the rocks. This factor would greatly mess up the "correct" age.

Water doesn't selectively wash radioactive elements out of rocks.

There's also the factor that some rocks may naturally contain either the initial element, or the element that it decays into. This would also make radio-metric dating unreliable.

Multiple methods exist to correct possible contaminations. No contaimination in any case will cause a 4000-year-old rock to appear 500-million-years-old.

Your knowledge of evolution may be woefully inadequate, but your understanding of geology is absolutely horrid. My special-ed Earth Science students wouldn't make the mistakes you make.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Excuse me? C-14 dating is only reliable for things up to 60,000 years old. And that's only if the assumptions made are correct.

U don't know this by now?

His point, which you predictably missed, is that ancient carbon levels can be determined by examining much older sediments calibrated by other dating methods.