What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Al Touthentop]

So how do plants grow in the first place?

Based on what you're trying to argue, it seems like reproduction should be impossible.

Only because you are arguing a completely untenable position would you ask this question.

Plants grow from seeds produced by mature adult plants. Those seeds contain complex codes which when introduced to nutrients and water and eventually sunlight, dictate every cell's function in that plant. Codes which required a designer and had to have existed before any evolution existed.

Codes made of proteins which could not not by any stretch of the imagination organize themselves. The amount of information stored in DNA is mind boggling and it had to exist - specific cellular instructions - prior to any single-celled organism coming into existence. Hence the absurd claim that DNA and RNA merely rained from the sky into the oceans. And inside that DNA RNA, were the pre-made instructions to the amoeba to eat, poop, move around and find food, and reproduce. Right.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You quoted what you don't understand. You still don't understand it. Entropy is not reduced by photosynthesis.

The plant is still on its way to death and decay.

So what! That's not photosynthesis and not relevant to the question of whether photosynthesis reduces or increases entropy.

The branches break off,

That's not photosynthesis.

the leaves fall off

That's not photosynthesis.

the petals fall off

That's not photosynthesis.

the DNA eventually degrades such that repair is no longer possible.

That's not photosynthesis.

They can grow new leaves and those leaves can collect C02 but the energy used to repair itself is "lost" energy through the process. Just as in an automobile engine.

BUT... That's not photosynthesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question is not even relevant to the point that was first made. The systems you're saying have reduced entropy, are headed to death and decay and the law of entropy is a description of that. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that all living machines and man made machines rush toward maximum entropy from the moment they're born.

To even get mired in the discussion about what sort of energy is used and stored while that mechanism works is pointless because once the thing does die, a new one does not generate itself from the raw materials that were used in its creation. And the thing itself did not jump out of the ground because the law of entropy forbids it.

There is no "law of entropy". The law that you want is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And you do not understand entropy. Seriously, entropy is about energy available for work. That is it. An increase in energy available for work is a decrease in local entropy and vice versa.

It takes an outside source of energy, such as the Sun to enable plants to store energy, wood in trees for example. When one looks at the entire process there is an even larger loss of energy available for work in the process of growing a tree than is stored as wood. But it would be extreme ignorance to claim that there is no energy in the wood. When that wood is burned that energy is released. It can be used to do some work, no matter what happens the process will increase entropy and lower energy available for work. You have been listening to misleading sources that try to claim entropy is all about decay. That is only a small part of it.

 

[pitabread]

The question is not even relevant to the point that was first made. The systems you're saying have reduced entropy, are headed to death and decay and the law of entropy is a description of that. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that all living machines and man made machines rush toward maximum entropy from the moment they're born.

To even get mired in the discussion about what sort of energy is used and stored while that mechanism works is pointless because once the thing does die, a new one does not generate itself from the raw materials that were used in its creation. And the thing itself did not jump out of the ground because the law of entropy forbids it.

However, you've already posted that local entropy can decrease. So with that being the case, how is evolution of life on Earth prohibited by thermodynamics?

Simply repeating the claim over and over isn't actually answering this.

(But like I said, we both know why you can't answer it. You've already contradicted your own claim and seem to be doing everything you can to avoid owning up to that.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only because you are arguing a completely untenable position would you ask this question.

Plants grow from seeds produced by mature adult plants. Those seeds contain complex codes which when introduced to nutrients and water and eventually sunlight, dictate every cell's function in that plant. Codes which required a designer and had to have existed before any evolution existed.

Codes made of proteins which could not not by any stretch of the imagination organize themselves. The amount of information stored in DNA is mind boggling and it had to exist - specific cellular instructions - prior to any single-celled organism coming into existence. Hence the absurd claim that DNA and RNA merely rained from the sky into the oceans. And inside that DNA RNA, were the pre-made instructions to the amoeba to eat, poop, move around and find food, and reproduce. Right.

Nope, no need of a designer. In fact there is no scientific evidence for a designer. And no one claimed that RNA and DNA simply poured from the sky. Nor did anyone, except for creationists, claim that all of the information was already there. As a Christian you should avoid strawman arguments.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Nope, no need of a designer. In fact there is no scientific evidence for a designer. And no one claimed that RNA and DNA simply poured from the sky. Nor did anyone, except for creationists, claim that all of the information was already there. As a Christian you should avoid strawman arguments.

Well, all you're doing here is proving how little you know about the theories being promoted about how it was possible for the law of entropy to be violated and to also explain the existence of RNA/DNA. Congratulations on that.

Yes, University of Berkeley scientists indeed claimed that RNA/DNA literally rained out of the clouds. They had to. No organisms can live without the coded instructions contained in DNA/RNA. The fact that there is a code and that the same code describes both a skin and a liver cell (nay, every digit and limb and every organ), not only suggests but demands a designer.

 

[pitabread]

Only because you are arguing a completely untenable position would you ask this question.

I'm asking the question because it's the easiest way to gauge someone's knowledge level of a subject. Especially if they struggle to provide a cogent response.

Plants grow from seeds produced by mature adult plants. Those seeds contain complex codes which when introduced to nutrients and water and eventually sunlight, dictate every cell's function in that plant. Codes which required a designer and had to have existed before any evolution existed.

Hold up for a second. I'm not talking about whether plants had a designer or not. I'm simply asking why, if by your own claim that all living things are trending towards maximum entropy, that plants could grow in the first place?

After all, why wouldn't seeds or cuttings just die off right away? Why can they produce new plants?

If your own claims about entropy and thermodynamics were true, biological reproduction shouldn't be possible.

 

[Al Touthentop]

However, you've already posted that local entropy can decrease. So with that being the case, how is evolution of life on Earth prohibited by thermodynamics?

Simply repeating the claim over and over isn't actually answering this.

(But like I said, we both know why you can't answer it. You've already contradicted your own claim and seem to be doing everything you can to avoid owning up to that.)

The fact that you don't at all understand the answer has ceased to be my problem. You're the one waving your hands around here.

 

[pitabread]

The fact that you don't at all understand the answer has ceased to be my problem. You're the one waving your hands around here.

You haven't provided an answer. You've just evaded answering the question, while repeating the assertion.

We both know you can't answer it.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You haven't provided an answer. You've just repeated an assertion.

The old "I know you are but what am I" response. Good one.

 

[pitabread]

The old "I know you are but what am I" response. Good one.

Huh? That doesn't even fit with the response you were replying to.

I think you're done here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, all you're doing here is proving how little you know about the theories being promoted about how it was possible for the law of entropy to be violated and to also explain the existence of RNA/DNA. Congratulations on that.

Yes, University of Berkeley scientists indeed claimed that RNA/DNA literally rained out of the clouds. They had to. No organisms can live without the coded instructions contained in DNA/RNA. The fact that there is a code and that the same code describes both a skin and a liver cell (nay, every digit and limb and every organ), not only suggests but demands a designer.

I am sure that you understand those as well as you understand entropy.

By the way, if you do ask politely I will gladly explain the science that you do not understand to you.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I'm asking the question because it's the easiest way to gauge someone's knowledge level of a subject. Especially if they struggle to provide a cogent response.

No, you're asking the question because you have no idea how entropy is related to creation and why it excludes spontaneous generation of complex cellular machines that require a complex coded mechanism which tells them how to eat, poop and find food.

Hold up for a second. I'm not talking about whether plants had a designer or not. I'm simply asking why, if by your own claim that all living things are trending towards maximum entropy, that plants could grow in the first place?

Because they had a designer who created them to grow even if conforming to the law of entropy.

After all, why wouldn't seeds or cuttings just die off right away? Why can they produce new plants?

They can't all. Some plants can, some plants can't. The DNA dictates whether or not they will grow roots under certain conditions. Pretty neat design.

If your own claims about entropy and thermodynamics were true, biological reproduction shouldn't be possible.

This is just absurd. The part that's impossible is the spontaneous generation of a living organism. I obviously can observe that not only does entropy exist but so also does biological reproduction. The law of entropy forbids a clump of dirt or "primordial soup" from generating a complex machine even if energy were to be added. You need far more than just energy in that case, you need DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you're asking the question because you have no idea how entropy is related to creation and why it excludes spontaneous generation of complex cellular machines that require a complex coded mechanism which tells them how to eat, poop and find food.




Because they had a designer who created them to grow even if conforming to the law of entropy.



They can't all. Some plants can, some plants can't. The DNA dictates whether or not they will grow roots under certain conditions. Pretty neat design.



This is just absurd. The part that's impossible is the spontaneous generation of a living organism. I obviously can observe that not only does entropy exist but so also does biological reproduction. The law of entropy forbids a clump of dirt or "primordial soup" from generating a complex machine even if energy were to be added. You need far more than just energy in that case, you need DNA.

Hmm, can you post a valid link to this "law of entropy"?

 

[pitabread]

No, you're asking the question because you have no idea how entropy is related to creation and why it excludes spontaneous generation of complex cellular machines that require a complex coded mechanism which tells them how to eat, poop and find food.

Like I said before, one of us doesn't understand entropy and I'm 100% sure that person isn't me.

Besides which, I should let the cat out the bag: this is not the first time (probably not even the dozenth time) I've encountered a creationist making the 2LoT argument re: evolution.

It used to be quite a common creationist PRATT. However, it's such a bad argument that even Answers in Genesis started advising creationists not to use it. And when AiG says a creationist claim is a bad argument, then you *know* it's a bad argument!

It's fun to see you keep doubling down on it though.

Because they had a designer who created them to grow even if conforming to the law of entropy.

But how could they grow in the first place if per your own claim they are trending towards maximum entropy? Why wouldn't the seeds just decay instead of growing?

In the context of thermodynamics, what is allowing that plant growth to happen?

This is just absurd.

Right, it does sound absurd doesn't it? But it's a natural consequence of your own claims.

This is why I said that one of us appears to not understand entropy, and that person isn't me.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, all you're doing here is proving how little you know about the theories being promoted about how it was possible for the law of entropy to be violated and to also explain the existence of RNA/DNA. Congratulations on that.

Yes, University of Berkeley scientists indeed claimed that RNA/DNA literally rained out of the clouds. They had to. No organisms can live without the coded instructions contained in DNA/RNA. The fact that there is a code and that the same code describes both a skin and a liver cell (nay, every digit and limb and every organ), not only suggests but demands a designer.

I've been trying to follow your arguments without much success. Maybe it would help if you could explain why you favor ID as a vehicle for divine creativity as opposed to other possibilities. For example, it is possible that God could have conceived a system in which the recursive process of randomly distributed variation and selection generated the information necessary for the biological diversity and complexity which we observe. Such a system is plausible, given the mathematics of stochastic processes, parsimonious and fits well with the available evidence. Why do you like ID better?

 

[pitabread]

I've been trying to follow your arguments without much success.

To be fair, I don't think even he can follow his own arguments. Which would explain the contradictions.

 

[Paul James]

Why?

I can still think a person can do (say) one thing right and still think everything else they do (say) is wrong.

My wife tells me this all the time (the right thing was, of course, marrying her).

The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

My wife just glares at me.

 

[Paul James]

Critical thinkers do this all the time. It's absurd to suggest that because one makes a true proposition, ergo all propositions are true. I'm bettin' you're a Trump man.

You're talking to a New Zealander here. I am a Jacinta man. As far as US politics is concerned I don't know who is a crook or not, so I don't place any bets on any of those horses!

 

[Al Touthentop]

I've been trying to follow your arguments without much success. Maybe it would help if you could explain why you favor ID as a vehicle for divine creativity as opposed to other possibilities. For example, it is possible that God could have conceived a system in which the recursive process of randomly distributed variation and selection generated the information necessary for the biological diversity and complexity which we observe. Such a system is plausible, given the mathematics of stochastic processes, parsimonious and fits well with the available evidence. Why do you like ID better?

Because the science seems to demand it. Deviations in DNA as little as .1% prevent any reproduction. The code has limits. That sort of limitation can't be random. You don't build in this capability for diversity and then turn it off sometime down the road. You must have designed it to be that way. And in order to have reproduction at all without extinction, given the rules of DNA, you have to have two compatible sexed pairs of any of the species. Any attempt to move from asexual to sexual utterly fails when you don't have a matched pair. A mammal doesn't reproduce without a male with a penis and female with a vagina and evolution would require that a parent mammal to be asexual and to have created a female and male, and that pair understand completely how they were to use these new untested organs. So the imperative had to also have been generated. Any mistake has the species go extinct. No do-overs. There is no time to get it right. One generation is all you get.