Let the Reckoning Begin

[BCP1928]

I did not use a science fiction author.

Isaac Asimov is a science fiction author.

 

[Belk]

I did not use a science fiction author.

You don't know who Issac Asimov is?

 

[Vambram]

You don't know who Issac Asimov is?

I stand corrected. However, Isaac Asimov was not my only source whom I quoted.

 

[BCP1928]

I stand corrected. However, Isaac Asimov was not my only source whom I quoted.

Duane Gish is also well known. Did you never hear of the "Gish gallop?"

 

[Belk]

I stand corrected. However, Isaac Asimov was not my only source whom I quoted.

That's cool. The experiment I posted directly contradicts their claims.

 

[essentialsaltes]

that is cherry picking.

Not at all.

Duane GIsh has been told (well, when he was alive) countless times that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to thermodynamically closed systems. But it makes a good sound bite, so he was never going to abandon it.

The way Gish presents it, people should fall apart and their systems fail within a week.

But we don't because our bodies are not a closed system. We have an external energy source. Food. If you don't eat and drink, you will indeed die in a matter of days.

Likewise, neither the earth as a whole, nor its biome, is a closed system. There is a potent source of external energy. And although the complete system has a net increase in entropy, this doesn't prevent a local decrease in entropy.

THE 'THREAT' OF CREATIONISM​

by Isaac Asimov

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 creationist 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.

To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a ''closed system'' - that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.

Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in line with the dictates of the second law.

Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system - the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually - moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill.

 

[Ophiolite]

that is cherry picking.

A remarkably large, energetic, long lifed cherry!

It's interesting, the primary reason you are alive and able to post here is that you have been fighting the 2nd Law all your life - and winning. But eventually you will lose and the decay and disorder you spoke of will follow. It's odd that you cannot see how whether for five minutes, five milleniad, or five billion years decay can be forestalled if the system is open and that big cherry is ripe for the picking.

 

[Vambram]

That's cool. The experiment I posted directly contradicts their claims.

Isaac Asimov was also a trained, well educated biochemistry for he earned biochemistry degrees and chemistry degrees from Columbia College and Columbia University which are well known Ivy League schools.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Isaac Asimov was also a trained, well educated biochemistry for he earned biochemistry degrees and chemistry degrees from Columbia College and Columbia University which are well known Ivy League schools.

Right, but Gish was cherry picking (real cherry picking) the quotes from Asimov. I have quoted Asimov's views on the subject in #126.

 

[Belk]

Isaac Asimov was also a trained, well educated biochemistry for he earned biochemistry degrees and chemistry degrees from Columbia College and Columbia University which are well known Ivy League schools.

That's nice. Does not change the fact that the claims are contradicted by empirical data.

 

[Vambram]

That's nice. Does not change the fact that the claims are contradicted by empirical data.

The huge complexity of information within the DNA structure makes it impossible for me to believe in the theory of evolution unless God Himself created life through evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The huge complexity of information within the DNA structure makes it impossible for me to believe in the theory of evolution unless God Himself created life through evolution.

So what's stopping you?

 

[Vambram]

So what's stopping you?

The many different passages of the Bible which clearly teaches that God created life. He did not evolve life by using macro evolution.

 

[Belk]

The huge complexity of information within the DNA structure makes it impossible for me to believe in the theory of evolution unless God Himself created life through evolution.

Your personal incredulity is, of course, perfectly valid for you. It does not prove an impediment for anyone else and the vast majority of experts in this field going back hundreds of years have not seen that as an issue.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Vambram The quote from Asimov you chose to support your position actually debunks it. The key is in the first sentence:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing.

"The energy of the universe". The universe is a closed system. Everything that Asimov says later is about closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system therefore your argument does not apply.

 

[Vambram]

Your personal incredulity is, of course, perfectly valid for you. It does not prove an impediment for anyone else and the vast majority of experts in this field going back hundreds of years have not seen that as an issue.

The vast majority of experts that believe in the the theory of macro evolution are people who would rather believe in their interpretation of science instead of believing in the many different passages of Scripture teaching that the Lord God Himself created the universe and all life. God is the Creator. He did not say that He evolved life.

 

[BCP1928]

The vast majority of experts that believe in the the theory of macro evolution are people who would rather believe in their interpretation of science instead of

Christians and other theists who accept the theory have no trouble believing in the many different passages of Scripture teaching that the Lord God Himself created the universe and all life. God is the Creator.

He did not say that He evolved life.

The existence of God as author of our being is not at issue in this discussion. Nothing that science has discovered or potentially in future could discover can disprove it.

 

[Belk]

The vast majority of experts that believe in the the theory of macro evolution are people who would rather believe in their interpretation of science instead of believing in the many different passages of Scripture teaching that the Lord God Himself created the universe and all life. God is the Creator. He did not say that He evolved life.

Is your interpretation of scripture infallible? Is it possible for you, like all other Christians, to be a fallible human and get things wrong? For example all the Christians who insisted the sun revolved around the earth? Because every time religious people disagree with science, science has come out on top.

 

[Vambram]

Is your interpretation of scripture infallible? Is it possible for you, like all other Christians, to be a fallible human and get things wrong? For example all the Christians who insisted the sun revolved around the earth? Because every time religious people disagree with science, science has come out on top.

Is it possible that the scientists are fallible, incorrect, and just flat out wrong?

The Christians who believed that the sun revolved around the earth had extremely shakey, if any, Scriptural ground upon which to stand.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is it possible that the scientists are fallible, incorrect, and just flat out wrong?

Yes. The proper way to demonstrate that is with a competing theory that is better at explaining the evidence than the current one.

Detractors of evolution have been unable to propose such a thing.

(And honestly, with the amount of evidence and the explanatory power of evolution, whatever replacement theory comes along will have to look an awful lot like evolution. Just like any future cosmological theory will have to look a lot like the Big Bang Theory. Or atomic theory. Or germ theory.)