Help a (creationist) brother out?

[Psalm 27]

No, evolution has more scientific evidence for it than any other theory in science, including the theory of gravity. In the sciences one does not "prove" anything. But if one goes by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" evolution has been proven a thousand times over.

Missing link?

Chimps are still chimps.
Humans are still humans.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it had a false assumption in the question. This is an example of the sort of question that you just asked:

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Do you see the false assumption? Do you understand how that would be a personal attack if I asked it seriously? There is no difference between what you asked and asking the question that I just wrote.

I get it... you are not a wife beater and you do not fully accept macroevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Missing link?

Chimps are still chimps.
Humans are still humans.

Of course they are. The "missing link" is now a creationist term. It shows that someone does not understand what they are arguing about. We are not descendants from modern day chimps. We shared a common ancestor with them. And that ancestor was an ape. And guess what, you and I are still apes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get it... you are not a wife beater and you do not fully accept macroevolution.

Only half right. I fully accept evolution. Why wouldn't I? You "fully accept" gravity, I hope. Why would you accept gravity and not accept evolution?

 

[Shemjaza]

Like you say, she just had an hour, but Georgia brings cans of wh*p-a*s with her when she comes.

If she has the answers, can you briefly answer the questions then?

Missing link?

Chimps are still chimps.
Humans are still humans.

Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens are absolutely separate species... but if you fill in the rest of the family how do you differentiate between a "man" and an "ape".

 

[Hark]

In Darwin's time, palaeontology was in its infancy; since then tens of thousands of transitional fossils have been discovered, and the evolution of feathers from scales has been established.

But seriously, what do you expect from a site whose publically declared 'core scientific principles' involve denying evolution? Give me a break...

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

Why don't you post the definitions of the Law of Biogenesis & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and explain how they do not disprove the macroevolution aspect of what is the core of the evolution theory?

 

[inquiring mind]

If she has the answers, can you briefly answer the questions then?

Too much writing... especally when you could just watch her presentation video and really learn.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why don't you post the definitions of the Law of Biogenesis & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and explain how they do not disprove the macroevolution aspect of what is the core of the evolution theory?

Law of Biogenesis is not a scientific law, it's a conclusion from simple experiments that "Only life can create life". It comes from demonstrating that old superstitions about the origin of flies and/or salamanders from rotting flesh and burning logs are misunderstandings.

The fact that modern complex animals have not been demonstrated to be produced by inert or dead material is insufficient to create an absolute statement about the source of life and bio chemistry.

In addition as it relates to macroevolution it is completely irrelevant. Macroevoltion is the variation over time of populations into one or more different species. This requires existing living species to occur, so even if the Law of Biogenesis was an absolute fact of the universe then it would not effect completely naturalistic macroevolution.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, is about how variations of temperature and energy in a closed system eventually tend to a stable inert state.

It's a common misunderstanding that the second law applies to complexity and not energy.

Life requires constant energy to fuel the chemical processes so if there was no input of energy everything that lives would eventually break down and stop reproducing... however the life on Earth has a constant supply of energy from sunlight or chemicals and heat from geothermal vents.

Macroevolution is a consequence of constant small variations within the reproduction of life, all it requires is that life is able to continually reproduce and spread over a very long period of time.

So if there is constant input of energy then life will be able to constantly absorb it and continue the process of entropy as the energy spreads out into the environment.



(Also, Merry Christmas everyone!)

 

[Hark]

Law of Biogenesis is not a scientific law, it's a conclusion from simple experiments that "Only life can create life". It comes from demonstrating that old superstitions about the origin of flies and/or salamanders from rotting flesh and burning logs are misunderstandings.

The fact that modern complex animals have not been demonstrated to be produced by inert or dead material is insufficient to create an absolute statement about the source of life and bio chemistry.

And yet you are addressing the "Law of Biogenesis". If it is not a scientific law, then what law is it?

In addition as it relates to macroevolution it is completely irrelevant. Macroevoltion is the variation over time of populations into one or more different species. This requires existing living species to occur, so even if the Law of Biogenesis was an absolute fact of the universe then it would not effect completely naturalistic macroevolution.

Yet no one has observed this macroevolution as it occurs over time. Having it occur outside of human observation as beyond human history is a bit of an inconvenience in taking it as a fact. So you are actually citing an assumption about a phenomenon that has never been observed nor proven. That is not real science nor does it qualify as a valid scientific theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, is about how variations of temperature and energy in a closed system eventually tend to a stable inert state.

It's a common misunderstanding that the second law applies to complexity and not energy.

Life requires constant energy to fuel the chemical processes so if there was no input of energy everything that lives would eventually break down and stop reproducing... however the life on Earth has a constant supply of energy from sunlight or chemicals and heat from geothermal vents.

Macroevolution is a consequence of constant small variations within the reproduction of life, all it requires is that life is able to continually reproduce and spread over a very long period of time.

So if there is constant input of energy then life will be able to constantly absorb it and continue the process of entropy as the energy spreads out into the environment.

Have you ever heard of Time's Arrow in regards to that Second Law of Thermodynamics? That is the application for how a created system is breaking down and not just energy wise for why things are not becoming more complex, but in the reverse as in breaking down or deformity.

Science has made the discovery that the speed of light is slowing down. So I see what you are saying, but the effects on the created system can also be seen as Time's Arrow which disproves the progress of the evolution theory of simple life forms becoming more complex when it is going in the other direction.

(Also, Merry Christmas everyone!)

I hope you have a Merry Christmas too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you post the definitions of the Law of Biogenesis & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and explain how they do not disprove the macroevolution aspect of what is the core of the evolution theory?

There is no longer a "Law of Biogenesis". It is an oversimplified law that only says that modern complex species cannot appear out of nothing. And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not say what creationists tell you that it says. The version that they use applies only to an isolated system.
The Earth is not an isolated system. In fact by the poor understanding of creationists life itself is impossible. So either there is life and their version is wrong or we are all a figment of my imagination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet you are addressing the "Law of Biogenesis". If it is not a scientific law, then what law is it?

It again was an over simplified statement that does not apply to abiogenesis. By the way, evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis anyway. Also moving the goalposts is a way of admitting defeat. Are you sure that you want to do that?

Yet no one has observed this macroevolution as it occurs over time. Having it occur outside of human observation as beyond human history is a bit of an inconvenience in taking it as a fact. So you are actually citing an assumption about a phenomenon that has never been observed nor proven. That is not real science nor does it qualify as a valid scientific theory.

That is not true. Macroevolution has been observed in real time quite often. Macroevolution is only speciation. Scientists have observed that both in the lab and in the field. Creationists do not understand the concept of macroevolution either.

Have you ever heard of Time's Arrow in regards to that Second Law of Thermodynamics? That is the application for how a created system is breaking down and not just energy wise for why things are not becoming more complex, but in the reverse as in breaking down or deformity.

Nope. By this poor understanding life itself is impossible. Once again, that version only applies to a closed system. And it refers to the total entropy of the system. The universe could be said to be a closed system and we do observe a steady increase in its entropy. There is nothing about the law that says that the increase in entropy has to be uniform. Lucky for us, huh?

Science has made the discovery that the speed of light is slowing down. So I see what you are saying, but the effects on the created system can also be seen as Time's Arrow which disproves the progress of the evolution theory of simple life forms becoming more complex when it is going in the other direction.

What? Where? Citation needed.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas too.

You too. I still wish people a Merry Christmas. I always have and always will.

 

[Shemjaza]

And yet you are addressing the "Law of Biogenesis". If it is not a scientific law, then what law is it?

It's a colloquial phrase, like Murphy's Law.

It's certainly a general rule, but not mathematically defined like scientific laws are required to be.

Yet no one has observed this macroevolution as it occurs over time. Having it occur outside of human observation as beyond human history is a bit of an inconvenience in taking it as a fact. So you are actually citing an assumption about a phenomenon that has never been observed nor proven. That is not real science nor does it qualify as a valid scientific theory.

I think you misunderstand how observation works in the scientific context. The evidence for deep time and macroevolution is repeatedly observational and predictable.

My personal favourite was the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, a hypothetical transitional fossil that was discovered by searching the right kind of environment in the right kind age range.

To use your definition of observation would you say it's unreasonable to assume Pluto will orbit the Sun? It has never been observed to orbit the whole way around, but with our knowledge of physics and orbital mechanics we can predict that it will. Evolution works on the same principles.

Have you ever heard of Time's Arrow in regards to that Second Law of Thermodynamics? That is the application for how a created system is breaking down and not just energy wise for why things are not becoming more complex, but in the reverse as in breaking down or deformity.

Not actually true as a general rule.

An easy example is the formation of crystalline structures. Warm liquid water in clouds has more thermodynamic variation with freezing air than snow flakes, but much less complexity.

From an energy perspective ice in cold airhas more entropy than water.

Science has made the discovery that the speed of light is slowing down. So I see what you are saying, but the effects on the created system can also be seen as Time's Arrow which disproves the progress of the evolution theory of simple life forms becoming more complex when it is going in the other direction.

Ultimately all energy in a closed system will achieve equilibrium, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for energy to move around into peaks... even if every stage is ultimately losing some of the total energy variation.

You haven't demonstrated that life increasing in complexity is a violation of thermodynamics any more than reproduction and refrigeration.

edit:
Also, can you demonstrate how the speed of light is slowing down? I've never heard of that evidence.

And wouldn't that be an even bigger problem for Young Earth ideas?

 

[Hark]

There is no longer a "Law of Biogenesis". It is an oversimplified law that only says that modern complex species cannot appear out of nothing.

So genetic information is not going to appear out of nowhere for a life to develop into a different kind of life. Life can become a similar life, but it can't become a more complex form of life. A fish will always be a fish; it can become a different kind of fish, but still a fish. That is the observation in conclusion.

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not say what creationists tell you that it says. The version that they use applies only to an isolated system.
The Earth is not an isolated system. In fact by the poor understanding of creationists life itself is impossible. So either there is life and their version is wrong or we are all a figment of my imagination.

With the speed of light slowing down, earth is not an isolated system. It is because of sin is how death entered creation and the universe. One day, all of creation will be liberated as the sons of God shall be.

 

[Bradskii]

A fish will always be a fish; it can become a different kind of fish, but still a fish.

So if a fish develops the ability to walk about on dry land, breathe air and climb trees, in your opinion...is it still a fish?

 

[Hark]

So if a fish develops the ability to walk about on dry land, breathe air and climb trees, in your opinion...is it still a fish?

No.

If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.

 

[Bradskii]

If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.

Nup. Definitely a fish:

Mudskippers are amphibious fish. Mudskipper - Wikipedia

And is a penguin a bird? It can't fly and spends a lot of its time swimming around under water. What 'kind' do you think these are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So genetic information is not going to appear out of nowhere for a life to develop into a different kind of life. Life can become a similar life, but it can't become a more complex form of life. A fish will always be a fish; it can become a different kind of fish, but still a fish. That is the observation in conclusion.



With the speed of light slowing down, earth is not an isolated system. It is because of sin is how death entered creation and the universe. One day, all of creation will be liberated as the sons of God shall be.

Life never develops into "a different kind of life". And of course life can become more complex. What makes you think that it cannot? And technically you are still a "fish" though we make that easier to understand by saying that you are a vertebrate. But we can trace our evolutionary history all the way back to the fishes.

There is an excellent series by Aron Ra, an ex-member here on YouTube where he does exactly that. He starts from before what we call "fish" today and traces our decent from them. It is a long series of videos. I think that there are over forty of them. I would link it, but since he probably says a "naughty word" or two throughout the series it would be a violation of the rules here to do so. I can tell you how to find the series if you wish to watch it. But it does show how very very wrong people are when they try to claim "no transitional fossils.


People quite often make the mistake of thinking that if they cannot understand something that it is impossible. And that is probably not the case more often than it is the case.

And I need to remind you that you posted no evidence for your claim that light is slowing down. I do not know of any competent physicist that is making that claim. If you cannot support your claim a mere handwave refutes it.

 

[Astrid]

Nup. Definitely a fish:

Mudskippers are amphibious fish. Mudskipper - Wikipedia

And is a penguin a bird? It can't fly and spends a lot of its time swimming around under water. What 'kind' do you think these are?

Haha i saw mudskipper coming.
Naughty trick on our unsophisticated friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.

Why do you think that? We have quite a few transitional fossils from fish to not fish.Tiktaalik is not the only one.

 

[Bradskii]

If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.

And if I said that we have an amphibian that has developed the ability to live underwater, could we still call it an amphibian? And you'd say 'If it is not an amphibian, it was never an amphibian'.

Except that we'd be talking about the same creature.