How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[TLK Valentine]

Notice the times we get evol statements about "you are lying" or "creationists are stupid" etc?? This constant resort to the Rev 12 principle of ad hominem accusation is stock-and-trade evolutionism.

A person caught lying has nobody to blame but themselves when they are called a liar.

 

[The Barbarian]

It appears that Rob has realized he goofed, and is now trying to back out gracefully.

 

[sfs]

And yet the real answer is - no. We have science today that proves that entropy is "observed to increase" in the lab -- with every reaction when the reaction and its immediate environment is taken into account for observing that increase.

Which has nothing to do with the question you asked. You asked if we needed the sun for a human to grow from a zygote to an adult.

 

[46AND2]

Why not?

does anyone in the "real world" argue that from conception to adulthood we have such a "VAST descrease in entropy" (to quote Asimov on another story) that we need to "appeal to the SUN" to make the chemical equations balance with entropy taken into consideration??

Seriously - that is where evolutionism wants to fall on its sword??

I think it's more likely that you really don't understand the laws of thermodynamics.



Let's try one of your own fellow evolutionist's posts as an 'example' of 'why not'.



"actual science" tells us that in EVERY reaction if you take the immediate environment and all the reactants - entropy always increases. This is true with ice melting and it is true with ice freezing."

No need to insert "fusion reaction on the sun - goes HERE" into the equations in "real science" -- but in "junk science" that sort of thing is needed all day long to get those piles of dust to turn into rabbits.

The seed of a plant, the zygote of a human are like matter transforming engines - designed to organize matter around them into the life form that they were created and designed to build. Each step in that transformation obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics - but the reason the outcome is going to higher orders of complexity from the raw-materials in the environment is classic intelligent design.

Just as a human can build a super computer from raw materials in the earth using intelligent design. And yet each step of that process obeys the 2nd LOT.

So then 2LOT as Asimov presents it - tells us that the raw materials do not ever "self organize" into such a super computer - but also tells us that a human can build one as long as every step conforms to the 2LOT.



And yet the real answer is - no. We have science today that proves that entropy is "observed to increase" in the lab -- with every reaction when the reaction and its immediate environment is taken into account for observing that increase.

This where Paul of Eugene quotes Asimov affirming that very "detail".

So, it appears your strategy is to ignore responses to you, then repeat your faulty arguments, and hope that makes them true.

Good luck with that.

 

[46AND2]

But a zygote - DESIGNED to do just that - can do it - and increasing entropy at every stage.

But...as loudmouth explained to you, it DOESN'T increase entropy at every stage.

 

[BobRyan]

Which has nothing to do with the question you asked. You asked if we needed the sun for a human to grow from a zygote to an adult.

I asked if you needed fusion reactions on the sun - to be inserted into reactions seen on earth - before those reactions demonstrate an increase in entropy. And the answer to that question is ... "no".

This where Paul of Eugene quotes Asimov affirming that very "detail".

Isaac Asimov characterized evolution as an increase in entropy. I have the book on my shelf where he says that.

Merely living causes entropy to increase. So a vast history of living things means a vast history of increased entropy, regardless that living species increase in the amount of organization and complexity.

Nothing in thermodynamics prohibits an increase in order and organization as long as there is a greater increase in disorder that is made to happen somewhere else. In the case of earth, gobs and gobs of entropy is created and exported via infrared radiation into outer space.

 

[BobRyan]

But...as loudmouth explained to you, it DOESN'T increase entropy at every stage.

As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.

So then - for a simple example - water freezing.

• Freezing is an exothermic process; where energy is lost from the water and dissipated to the surroundings.
• Therefore, as the surroundings get hotter, they are gaining more energy and thus the entropy of the surroundings is increasing at the same time that the entropy of the water is decreasing. The net is a “net increase” in entropy which means that if you redirect the heat in the surroundings back to the water it will melt again but each such reaction results in less-and-less usable heat to revert back and reverse the process. Like the force of gravity for objects on earth – it is always there no matter if the object is at rest or is being thrown through the air.

So now back to Asimov's "confession" about the non-science of blind faith evolutionism when it comes to "entropy".

Asimov's observation about the billions of years taking dust and gas through the mythical "self-organizing steps" of blind faith evolutionism until it reaches the state of "a human brain" - is that this is a 'VAST DECREASE" in entropy over billions of years of time - compensated ONLY -- by fusion reactions on the Sun!! What non-science! What ... "junk science"

 

[46AND2]

As stated already - every reaction at every stage exhibits an increase in entropy rather than a decrease in entropy as long as the immediate surroundings (not something 93 million miles away) are taken into account.

So then - for a simple example - water freezing.

• Freezing is an exothermic process; where energy is lost from the water and dissipated to the surroundings.
• Therefore, as the surroundings get hotter, they are gaining more energy and thus the entropy of the surroundings is increasing at the same time that the entropy of the water is decreasing. The net is a “net increase” in entropy which means that if you redirect the heat in the surroundings back to the water it will melt again but each such reaction results in less-and-less usable heat to revert back and reverse the process. Like the force of gravity for objects on earth – it is always there no matter if the object is at rest or is being thrown through the air.

So now back to Asimov's "confession" about the non-science of blind faith evolutionism when it comes to "entropy".

Asimov's observation about the billions of years taking dust and gas through the mythical "self-organizing steps" of blind faith evolutionism until it reaches the state of "a human brain" - is that this is a 'VAST DECREASE" in entropy over billions of years of time - compensated ONLY -- by fusion reactions on the Sun!! What non-science! What ... "junk science"

A SYSTEM exhibits an increase in entropy. That doesn't mean that every PART of a system does. The growth of a zygote to infant is PART of a system (which includes the sun) which exhibits a decrease in entropy.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, it appears your strategy is to ignore responses to you, then repeat your faulty arguments, and hope that makes them true.

Funny how folks never realize that it applies to them, um?

 

[BobRyan]

A SYSTEM exhibits an increase in entropy. That doesn't mean that every PART of a system does. The growth of a zygote to infant is PART of a system (which includes the sun) which exhibits a decrease in entropy.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the sun exhibiting vast increase in entropy in its own local environment.

Where the "nonscience" comes in from the junk-science religion of evolutionism is the fiction that ice freezing requires a nuclear fusion reaction with helium-3 or Deuterium to show any sort of increase in entropy. Such fiction are ok for fairy tales but they are not good at all in actual science.

 

[The Barbarian]

A SYSTEM exhibits an increase in entropy. That doesn't mean that every PART of a system does. The growth of a zygote to infant is PART of a system (which includes the sun) which exhibits a decrease in entropy.

So living things can grow and populations evolve, with decreases in entropy, so long as the larger system (solar system) increases in entropy. That's what everyone has been trying to explain to you.

BTW, I asked you to tell us what you think "entropy" means. Would you mind doing that?

 

[BobRyan]

But...as loudmouth explained to you, it DOESN'T increase entropy at every stage.

every reaction exhibits and increase in entropy when the local environment it taken into account - at every stage.

The point remains.

That is the difference between actual observed science - and junk science religion such as blind-faith-evolutionism.

 

[BobRyan]

So then we have some atheists and a few catholics - cautiously nearing the details in the discussion - where are the "Evangelicals turned atheist" or "turned T.E."???

 

[The Barbarian]

Where the "nonscience" comes in from the junk-science religion of evolutionism is the fiction that ice freezing requires a nuclear fusion reaction with helium-3 or Deuterium to show any sort of increase in entropy.

That's just a story creationists tell. Scientists don't actually say that. If you really want to learn about it, go here:

• Why does water freeze at temperatures below 0oC?
• Water has a greater entropy than ice and so entropy favours melting.
• But ice has a lower energy than water and so energy favours freezing.
• It is possible to predict what will happen by taking into account the entropy of the surroundings, in addition to the energy of the system.

http://www.4college.co.uk/a/O/entsurr.php

Such fiction are ok for fairy tales

I asked you to tell us what you thought "entropy" is. I think that's why you keep running into walls; I suspect you don't really know what it is.

 

[Astrophile]

An interesting situation way out there in outer space is that the entropy in an average square light year of space is getting less.

Shouldn't this be cubic light-year? Volume rather than area.

 

[46AND2]

every reaction exhibits and increase in entropy when the local environment it taken into account - at every stage.

The point remains.

That is the difference between actual observed science - and junk science religion such as blind-faith-evolutionism.

What your argument amounts to is that the sun is not an energy source for the earth.

 

[Jimmy D]

I asked if you needed fusion reactions on the sun - to be inserted into reactions seen on earth - before those reactions demonstrate an increase in entropy. And the answer to that question is ... "no".

This where Paul of Eugene quotes Asimov affirming that very "detail".

You seem enjoy Asimov quotes so here's an apt one for you from the article I linked (which I doubt you even looked at).

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.

 

[Jimmy D]

By the way Bob, if you ever need an Asimov quote for another discussion here's a nice one for you.....


..... the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." ....... since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

 

[The Cadet]

By the way, in case anyone is wondering what happened in the last few decades; why most of these quote mines are from decades past... It's not because the science has become more clear - it has, but that's not the reason - but rather because scientists have gotten wise to this crap. Because they're realized that if they don't choose their words very carefully, they're going to find themselves dishonestly quoted out of context by Christians who think that the 9th Commandment doesn't apply if you're lying for Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

You seem enjoy Asimov quotes so here's an apt one for you from the article I linked (which I doubt you even looked at).

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts ...

1. I quote atheist sources to evolutionists because for the evol POV - that is the "high priest" -- it is not because I am atheist or because I also blindly follow whatever atheists say.
2. The fact that you quote an atheist to "me" - as if this obectivity and parity with my find your own atheist evolutionists exposing flaws in evolutionism - is a confirmation of what Patterson calls "anti-knowledge" that evolutionism conveys to its true believers.

The text you give about Christians not being "Able" to be scientists - is the sort of utter nonsense we can expect from students of blind faith evolutionism. It argues that because someone notices the flaws in evolutionism - they must not be "able" to be a scientist, to study science, to be chemists, biologists, physicists, egineers.

That is the sort of "religion" that Collin Patterson lamented among his fellow atheist evolutionists.


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981


--------------------- Patterson said -


“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?


I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."
===============================
Hint: that text is not from a letter to Sunderland.