• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Where does that light come from?
This one:

540phosyn.GIF

Is it your wild fiction that the reaction AND its immediate environment contradict the second law? Even after it was pointed out to you - that such fiction does not work in real life???


===========================================

  1. Photosystem I, non-cyclic electron flow path:
    2Chlorophyll + 2γ(700 nm) -> 2Chlorophyll + NADPH + ATP+ H 2 O
    cyclic electron flow path:

    2Chlorophyll + 2γ(700 nm) -> 2Chlorophyll + ATP+ H 2 O
  2. Photosystem II:

    H 2 O + 2γ(680 nm) + 2Chlorophyll -> 2Chlorophyll + 1/2 O 2 + 2H+
  3. Calvin Cycle:

    6CO 2 + 12NADPH + 18ATP + 12H 2 O -> C 6 H 12 O 6

===================In summary -
PII - Photosystem II:
PI - Photosystem I:

12 PII + 12PI(non-cyclic) + 6PI(cyclic) + Calvin Cycle

give us

6CO 2 + 24H 2 O + 60γ -> C 6 H 12 O 6 + 6O 2 + 18H 2 O.

"We can of course see now how the biome functions thermodynamically. It requires a great deal of energy input in the form of light, and the cumulative generation of entropy, first during the photosynthesis of glucose, and then through the respiration of glucose back into carbon dioxide and water (not to mention all of the other processes of life which go into circulating glucose through the biome) guarantees that the entropy always increases. This relentless increase in entropy, along with the conservation of energy (in terms of heat, internal energy and work) make up the two "laws" of thermodynamics."

ΔS(total) = ΔS(sys) + ΔS(surr)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Karl Popper (atheist philosopher of science) wrote that natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing. When attacked by evolutionism’s devotees for saying what he said, Popper wrote in his own defense:

“some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring” citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson and others. (A Pocket Popper (1983) p242​

Following this, the journal "Nature" came out with an article titled “How True is the Theory of Evolution?” in which the editors interpreted Karl Popper as having said that Darwinism is “both metaphysical and unfalsifiable” and then confessed that “This is technically correct ”

(Nature: Vol 290. p 75)
And then later tried to recover by adding the lame observation “the theory of evolution is not entirely without empirical support”.

==========================

Hard to believe that Evangelicals would read what atheist evolutionists themselves are saying about blind faith evolutionism - and then knowingly abandon the Bible for it.

Hard to "ignore every detail" when pursuing blind faith evolutionism - even for devotees such as Popper.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Asimov:

And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?

The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed or the primeval slime, either.


Asimov is right about that.




Evolutionism is fiction.

So we expect Asimov to claim the exact opposite when it comes to blind faith evolutionism EVEN though "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.

I fail to see why you think that mere increase in entropy rules out evolution. After all, you've managed to live for years and years in an environment that you have, yourself, managed to add oodles and oodles of entropy. How come you are still alive, given all that entropy your mere living has created? I don't think you know how to answer that one.


How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers. :)

Hee hee let those unbiased objective readers watch you squirm trying to figure that answer out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,388
13,140
78
✟436,801.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Bob, are we to conclude that since you can't name even one process that is necessary for evolution, that is prohibited by thermodynamics, you're just going to hope the question goes away?

This is, I think, the sixth time you've declined to give us a straight answer. Why not just deal with it, and get it over with?
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What is this obsession with Asimov?

Some creationists seem to think that if they can just find one or two quotes by scientists then that immediately cancels out 150 years of fossil and genetic evidence. I can't wait to see BobRyan get his Nobel Prize for 'completely disproving evolution by quoting something Isaac Asimov said'. And Bob, please learn something about thermodynamics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To be honest, I find it staggering. When an 'evolutionist' is saying something which can be perceived (or quote mined) as supporting the creationists views they're all over it like a cheap suit. Take Colin Patterson for example - Is it really acceptable to suggest 99.9% of the work he's done over his long career is wrong, but one trifling thing he said (which has been taken out of context) is correct and should be trumpeted all over the internet as some sort of 'proof' against everything else he's done?

Of course, it's possible that Colin Patterson is a fraud and everything he's done over his career is a lie to perpetuate the myth of 'evolutionism', or that he really is totally wrong about everything apart from that one nugget Bob's picked out.

The whole tactic stinks of desperation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Is it really acceptable to suggest 99.9% of the work he's done over his long career is wrong, but one trifling thing he said (which has been taken out of context) is correct and should be trumpeted all over the internet as some sort of 'proof' against everything else he' done?
Not just out of context, he explicitly repudiated creationist misrepresentations of his argument.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Photons of varying wavelength are emitted due to a number of reasons.

Where do you think the bulk of photons used in photosynthesis come from? Why be coy?

Also, I am still waiting for you to explain which mechanism in the process of evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Can't do it?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic


I think you would love to make me the author of everything your own atheist Asimov says.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers. :)

Can't answer the question? Here it is again.

What step in evolution are you saying can't happen because of thermodynamics? Here are list of mechanisms. Please tell us which ones are prevented by thermodynamics:

Natural selection, mutation, speciation, and neutral drift.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Is it your wild fiction that the reaction AND its immediate environment contradict the second law?

That would be your fictional world. You are the one who claimed that entropy always increases. Going from water and carbon dioxide to carbohydrates is a decrease in entropy. In your fictional world, photosynthesis shouldn't occur.

Also, did you miss this part?

"It requires a great deal of energy input in the form of light"

Where does that light come from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: poggytyke
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Where does that light come from?
This one:

540phosyn.GIF

Is it your wild fiction that the reaction AND its immediate environment contradict the second law? Even after it was pointed out to you - that such fiction does not work in real life???

hint:
During formation of glucose the system is gaining energy – so ΔG is positive – Endergonic, non-spontaneous. To occur at all it must be “pushed or pulled” by associative Exergonic reaction – energy input from its surroundings.

Endergonic reactions can be achieved if they are either pulled or pushed by an exergonic (stability increasing, negative change in free energy) process. Of course, in all cases the net reaction of the total system (the reaction under study plus the puller or pusher reaction) is exergonic.

All physical and chemical systems in the universe follow the second law of thermodynamics and proceed in a downhill, i.e., exergonic, direction. Thus, left to itself, any physical or chemical system will proceed, according to the second law of thermodynamics, in a direction that tends to lower the free energy of the system (ΔG is negative), and thus to expend energy in the form of work.

The energy transfer available in the immediate surrounding (proximity - touching the plant) when combined with the reaction for forming glucos is still a net increase in entropy

And of course - when a photosystem absorbs a photon, the internal energy (U = 0) of the photon is converted into the free energy of the chlorophyll excited state (ΔG) and some part of the energy is expected to be converted into entropy (ΔS),

===========================================

  1. Photosystem I, non-cyclic electron flow path:
    2Chlorophyll + 2γ(700 nm) -> 2Chlorophyll + NADPH + ATP+ H 2 O
    cyclic electron flow path:

    2Chlorophyll + 2γ(700 nm) -> 2Chlorophyll + ATP+ H 2 O
  2. Photosystem II:

    H 2 O + 2γ(680 nm) + 2Chlorophyll -> 2Chlorophyll + 1/2 O 2 + 2H+
  3. Calvin Cycle:

    6CO 2 + 12NADPH + 18ATP + 12H 2 O -> C 6 H 12 O 6

===================In summary -
PII - Photosystem II:
PI - Photosystem I:

12 PII + 12PI(non-cyclic) + 6PI(cyclic) + Calvin Cycle

give us

6CO 2 + 24H 2 O + 60γ -> C 6 H 12 O 6 + 6O 2 + 18H 2 O.

"We can of course see now how the biome functions thermodynamically. It requires a great deal of energy input in the form of light, and the cumulative generation of entropy, first during the photosynthesis of glucose, and then through the respiration of glucose back into carbon dioxide and water (not to mention all of the other processes of life which go into circulating glucose through the biome) guarantees that the entropy always increases. This relentless increase in entropy, along with the conservation of energy (in terms of heat, internal energy and work) make up the two "laws" of thermodynamics."

That would be your fictional world. You are the one who claimed that entropy always increases. Going from water and carbon dioxide to carbohydrates is a decrease in entropy.

A "decrease in entropy" for what? the reaction AND its immediate environment?

That answer that is always - "no".

In your fictional world, photosynthesis violates the 2nd law.

Also, did you miss this part?

"It requires a great deal of energy input in the form of light"

Where does that light come from?

There are a great many reactions that result in photons emitted - not just fusion of Hydrogen... as it turns out.

Notice that in "white light" not all photons are at γ(700 nm)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,388
13,140
78
✟436,801.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Notice that in "white light" not all photons are at γ(700 nm)

So, if photosynthesis can't use all wavelengths, you're saying that plants growing isn't a decrease in entropy? Show us that. Preferably after the first question you dodged.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So, if photosynthesis can't use all wavelengths, you're saying that plants growing isn't a decrease in entropy? Show us that. Preferably after the first question you dodged.

The total energy in the immediate surroundings is less than the energy that is available to be used to "push" the Endergonic process for forming glucose.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
Asimov:

And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?

The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed or the primeval slime, either.


Asimov is right about that.

How many plants are growing on the sun???

the energy required to push endergonic reactions cannot be limited to 93 million miles from the reaction. The energy has to be in the immediate surroundings to the endergonic reaction. The appeal to the sun god - as if evolutionism was not going to happen in the reactions available to us on earth - is an appeal to fiction for the fiction of evolutionism. Asimov's statement is not about one reaction -- it is about billions of years of reactions not balancing without fusion reactions the Sun.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married


And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that vast decrease of entropy) have taken place?

The answer is it could not have taken place without a tremendous source of energy constantly bathing the earth, for it is on that energy that life subsists. Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed or the primeval slime, either.



Yet - how many plants are growing on the sun???

the energy required to push endergonic reactions cannot be limited to 93 million miles from the reaction. The energy has to be in the immediate surroundings to the endergonic reaction. The appeal to the sun god - as if evolutionism was not going to happen in the reactions available to us on earth - is an appeal to fiction for the fiction of evolutionism. Asimov's statement is not about one reaction -- it is about billions of years of reactions not balancing without fusion reactions the Sun.

...Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Please learn basic science before disputing it. Thanks.

T.E. limits its insights to "witty ad hominem" not actual science.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,388
13,140
78
✟436,801.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The total energy in the immediate surroundings is less than the energy that is available to be used to "push" the Endergonic process for forming glucose.

That's true of all cases where entropy decreases.

You ready to show us a process required for evolution, that's ruled out by thermodynamics?
 
Upvote 0