What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[HitchSlap]

No it isn't. Were it a contradiction, then there would be scientists who pose that claim. None do.

Wait, are you actually suggesting photosynthesis increases entropy?

 

[Al Touthentop]

That is a pity. You trust people that openly lie instead of an honest person willing to help you.

You have openly lied. Even after you knew JAMA was lying, you repeated their lie and even said afterward you knew it was a lie. So you did this intentionally.

You're not an honest person trying to help me and you do not know the subject matter anyway. Furthermore as proof of your dishonesty and poor reading comprehension I note your sentence above which says that I "trust people that openly lie" [sic]. To prove this you have to show two things:

1. Somebody has openly lied and not merely said something you disagreed with.
2. That I have stated that I trust that person.

You won't be able to demonstrate either and this can't be more obvious a proof that you have no knowledge or even sincere interest in science. The only thing you're interested in is gainsaying.

 

[Strathos]

smh

Nice rebuttal. Of course the fact is that the tent is metaphorical in the first place, so trying to claim that verse was saying that the earth is flat is fractally wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait, are you actually suggesting photosynthesis increases entropy?

Over all it does. What he is arguing is that complexity cannot increase as it does in evolution from my understanding and photosynthesis refutes that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice rebuttal. Of course the fact is that the tent is metaphorical in the first place, so trying to claim that verse was saying that the earth is flat is fractally wrong.

Your argument has degraded to the point where that is the only response.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Wait, are you actually suggesting photosynthesis increases entropy?

Misdirected reply.

The sun increases entropy. Photosynthesis is not a contradiction to that. Were it so, it would be an exception to the law of entropy that would be noted in the literature.

Even plants age and the sun helps that along in spite of the energy it provides to the plant which it then uses to process its food source - using that energy. And technically this energy "leaks." If it didn't, then a plant would be a perpetual motion machine of which no such machines can exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have openly lied. Even after you knew JAMA was lying, you repeated their lie and even said afterward you knew it was a lie. So you did this intentionally.

You're not an honest person trying to help me and you do not know the subject matter anyway. Furthermore as proof of your dishonesty and poor reading comprehension I note your sentence above which says that I "trust people that openly lie" [sic]<sic>. To prove this you have to show two things:

1. Somebody has openly lied and not merely said something you disagreed with.
2. That I have stated that I trust that person.

You won't be able to demonstrate either and this can't be more obvious a proof that you have no knowledge or even sincere interest in science. The only thing you're interested in is gainsaying.

What on Earth are you ranting about?

As to your claim, you trust creationist sites. They openly lie quite often. Or are you claiming that they are idiots? Unfortunately you will not allow yourself to understand how they lie. You would have to learn the basics of science. You refuse to do so. I cannot prove to you that you trust people that lie, I can prove to a person that can reason rationally.

Your trust is shown in your using those sites as sources. Why else would you use them? Are you claiming to be a poe? People in debates do not use sources unless they trust those sources. Unless they are trolling. I do not accuse you of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you could read without applying the "everything that guy says is wrong no matter what he says", we'd have a much better time communicating. You claim that photosynthesis is a repudiation of entropy. It isn't. No scientist claims it. Only you claim that and your little barking dog friend.

No he didn't. No one arguing with you has claimed that photosynthesis is a "repudiation of entropy".

Seriously you keep misunderstanding the posts of others.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you could read without applying the "everything that guy says is wrong no matter what he says", we'd have a much better time communicating. You claim that photosynthesis is a repudiation of entropy. It isn't. No scientist claims it. Only you claim that and your little barking dog friend.

I never stated this, nor has anyone else. I asked you a specific question. I'll ask agian.

Are you suggesting that photosynthesis increases entropy?

 

[Al Touthentop]

I never stated this, nor has anyone else. I asked you a specific question. I'll ask agian.

Are you suggesting that photosynthesis increases entropy?

I've never suggested anything like that. It is the sun which increases entropy.

 

[MIDutch]

There are members that can do science in other fields. None of them can do science when it comes to the concept of creationism.

As to the scientific method you are right that none of them are written in stone, but in none of them is anyone allowed to assume that one is correct.

I've just recently been to the IRC website. I'm with you that I recall a page that outlined their oath to only believing in a literal and inerrant Biblical reading and doing "science" to promote that, but it seems to no longer be there.

I did, however, find this one from another "creationist research institute":

Statement of Belief

ALL MEMBERS MUST SUBSCRIBE TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF BELIEF:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

 

[Strathos]

Your argument has degraded to the point where that is the only response.

Concession Accepted.

 

[pitabread]

Why? What physics are defied? In the case of evolution that's certainly true. The second law of thermal dynamics says there's no way for a more complex anything to arise from basic elements without energy being added.

The sun increases entropy. Photosynthesis is not a contradiction to that. Were it so, it would be an exception to the law of entropy that would be noted in the literature.

Even plants age and the sun helps that along in spite of the energy it provides to the plant which it then uses to process its food source - using that energy. And technically this energy "leaks." If it didn't, then a plant would be a perpetual motion machine of which no such machines can exist.

I think you're going to have to make up your mind about what you're trying to argue here.

(And for the record, nobody is suggesting that plants function as perpetual motion machines.)

 

[MIDutch]

Early Christians, yes. They probably believed in a spherical Earth. Early Hebrews probably not.

Good thing the early Hebrews didn't write portions of the Bible then.
.
.
.
Oh, wait.

 

[HitchSlap]

I've never suggested anything like that. It is the sun which increases entropy.

Does photosynthesis decrease entropy?

 

[HitchSlap]

Good thing the early Hebrews didn't write portions of the Bible then.
.
.
.
Oh, wait.

The ancient Hebrews didn't necessarily believe in a flat earth, but their description was closer to flat, than it was a globe.

 

[Al Touthentop]

No he didn't. No one arguing with you has claimed that photosynthesis is a "repudiation of entropy".

You just said that photosynthesis decreases entropy. The two are not even related. Oh but I get it now. You think that this is a valid statement:

What he is arguing is that complexity cannot increase as it does in evolution from my understanding and photosynthesis refutes that.

Complexity is not increased by photosynthesis. That would mean that entropy is itself repudiated by photosynthesis. The complexity of a plant is determined by its DNA, and that complexity does not increase through photosynthesis. That would be like saying that a baby becomes more complex because he eats. He doesn't. He's born with all the complexity he'll ever have which is determined by his innate characteristics.

His whole life he fights decay - entropy - until he finally dies and then he turns to dust (though entropy!).

 

[Al Touthentop]

The ancient Hebrews didn't necessarily believe in a flat earth, but their description was closer to flat, than it was a globe.

Yeah, a sphere is flat. Every Hebrew knew that.

 

[Quietus]

A poster is responsible for the links that he or she posts. Why on Earth would you post from sites that you did not check or understand? That almost sounds like an admission of trolling.

It’s really not that deep.

 

[pitabread]

Complexity is not increased by photosynthesis. That would mean that entropy is itself repudiated by photosynthesis. The complexity of a plant is determined by its DNA, and that complexity does not increase through photosynthesis. That would be like saying that a baby becomes more complex because he eats. He doesn't. He's born with all the complexity he'll ever have which is determined by his innate characteristics.

His whole life he fights decay - entropy - until he finally dies and then he turns to dust (though entropy!).

So you're okay with biological evolution not being in violation of thermodynamics then?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Does photosynthesis decrease entropy?

Not at all.