I did not say your faith is a hoax, i stated that "creation theory" is a hoax, or a mask for christian theory, the difference is in that. Take it how you want it. I i wanted to say what you believe in is a giant lie i would, i dont hide things very well. I said i would not post to this debate any longer and i am not, just trying to clear up it was not an attack on being a christian in that sense, but the front it uses with the name "creation theory". Sorry if you were mistaken.

How is that a difference? I believe that God, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, created the earth out of nothing. He willed it into being. It is the basis of my faith. You cannot have one without the other. So when you call the "creation theory" a hoax you are taking a blow at my beliefs. If you say that I don't agree, that's one thing, but saying my beliefs are based on a lie, I take that personally.

I don't mean to give you more to reply to, Mrs. P, but I thought I'd respond since I might not have time to later tonight...

Regarding the macroevolution and the idea that it "just takes time," I thought I would elaborate on the position of my previous post. In that one I mentioned that there was more than just time for us to look at and listed factors like radiation, mutations and disease. With the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, there is a proposal that an isolated group of a species could be cut off from the larger population and forced to undergo what appears to be known as selection pressure. Put under pressure this group could evolve rapidly, later spreading and quickly replacing their "parent" species.

As to #3 being kicked around between you and Meatros, while you may view science to be bias and dogmatic, this does not appear to be the case in scientifically rejecting Creationism/ID. Rather than simply rejecting it out of bias, it is rejected on several grounds I've mentioned before either through quotes or links:

• Creationism cannot change since it is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Instead of the theory changing to fit the facts, creationists distort the facts to fit the "theory."
• Creationism is ad hoc, meaning that it makes no predictions and can only explain observations after they have already been made. This in contrast to scientific theories, which are required to make detailed predictions about future observations (scientific method).
• Creationism is at odds with observational evidence, and leaves itself no room in which to alther its "theory" as it is based on literal interpretation of the Bible and the Bible is not likely to be rewritten anytime soon.

It doesn't take any bias on behalf of the scientific community to reject Creationism/ID. The only dogma the ideology finds opposing it is the scientific method which seems more than reasonable and is applied equally to all hypothesis' and theories regardless of origin.

Then call it what it is, christian theory, people in this debate are still trying to use entropy as an arguement, in every single post i have made, i have supplied links and my own accounts of said links data to show why this does not hold. The simple fact it is still being used is proof that the people in this debate dont care to debate but push christian theory like some radical islamic warrior. How can i work with that. Th eentropy arguement holds if you do not unerstand your own arguement, i have found links that make it simple why said arguement only holds if you make gross mistakes with data or just exclude giant parts in total. I have made posts that show the findings of gene mechinisms that work the macroevolutinary account, i cannot debate someone that is not here to debate, i said if that is what you want to believe that is fine, but dont debate if you are not going to look at what i present from the scientific community agaist your point from the christian community. This is a debate is it not. Or is it some place made in an attmempt at the age old spirtual conversion thing. You tell me. I have to play defense, i dont go and attack their reckless assaults with with arguements they dont understand, i dont attack the bible, but every second i have to deal with the same arguements and why i cant make a baby human pop out of a chimp, its getting very old to say the least, i do not want to debate here any longer against deep emotional convections, the reaction i got proves that without a doubt. I also dont want to be held in contempt for the wrong reasons, if you believe genesis and not scienec or natrual history that is fine, but dont debate if you just plan not to, its very annoying, and you should know you dont plan to turn from your faith so why are you even here in the first place.

well if I understand the 2nd law of thermodyanics is


1. animals are alive so they aren't an isolated system.
2. All organisms get energy/or the chemicals needed for it from outside sources
3. DNA doesn't change based on an organisms environment
4. No animals get energy to move from it's parents
Where does energy come into play in genetics?

No, I have no problem debating, and I do read your posts. I also got an A in science when they taught the theory of evolution. I'm not so narrow minded that I won't debate, all I ask is that you stop referring to my beliefs as hoax's. That's all.

Who are you addressing? Could you cite examples of ANYONE pushing "christian theory like some radical islamic warrior?"

You have also not explained any of your links. That would be very helpful.

Which is, of course, not the case. This is ICR we're talking about though, a demonstrably dishonest organization whose founders and major 'scientists' have been caught in bald-faced falsehoods, misrepresentations and misquotes time and time again. Even when proven wrong, people like Duane Gish and Henry Morris turn around and continue to repeat their lies. They simply have no interest in the truth, just spewing their religious nonsense to a largely ignorant audience.

Just a couple examples, of which many, many more could be provided:
ICR Lies
Gish Lie



I wouldn't say that most creationists believe in a lie, as in order to be a lie, one has to know that it is false and be purposely spreading a dishonest idea. Outside of 'creation scientists', who certainly do know that what they are spewing is false, most creationists simply are ignorant of reality. They demand that the Bible is true without possibility of error and anything that disagrees with this very simplistic (and false) view must be wrong. Of course, most of these people think Jesus was white. And spoke English. And that the King James Bible is completely free of error.

I think the utter fear and self-imposed ignorance of these people is sad. Instead of deciding that the Bible is inerrant and ignoring the clear and present evidence otherwise, you'd think that there shouldn't be any evidence, that the Bible should be self-evidently true.

Too bad that's simply not the case.



The problem here is that science uses the word 'theory' differently than the general population does. Yes, evolution is a theory. In science, a theory is defined as a set of statements that seek to explain a scientific fact. That evolution happens is not in question. It's been known for more than a hundred years and no credible scientist doubts it. Exactly *HOW* it works is still in question though and those ideas are constantly being revised as new information is discovered. A scientific theory isn't a wild, random guess and anyone who claims it is is either ignorant or purposely dishonest.

Life is energy, RU. Respiration, thought, action, everything. Look at the link in nileriver’s post right above yours for an explanation of how the entropic force relates to life.



I’m demonstrated an inconsistency, Abs. Both of the sources I posted offered conflicting explanations for entropic dispersion. Both presented their assessments as though they were law. Specifically, the post by Meatros suggested that anyone questioning the second law of thermo was ignorant. The second link (my post) made it evident that questioning the link by Meatros was legitimate, even by the most scientific standards. His link (unless the word of today is again conflicting) was wrong, and anyone dubious would be correct under the new paradigm.

I don’t have time to reference textbooks or investigate fossil records, quite honestly. I am assuming most of the posters here don’t either. During the few minutes of available time at my disposal, I was able to see a direct inconsistency on one explanation in favor of macroevolution, so I must assume there are probably many more within this science that aren’t brought to light. Obviously not everything posted within these links, presumably proven as fact, is necessarily fact. Much of it is speculation and educated guess.


Absolutely true, I will certainly agree with you there. As I posted, I would never challenge the concept of macroevolution by asserting that creationist theory is more sound, or scientifically based. It is entirely a leap of faith. There will probably never be a day that scientists proclaim, ‘Hey! We proved God exists!’
I was compelled to post because of the outright arrogant and condescending nature of some of the posts on this thread, to the point of equating evolution doubters with the 'learning disabled'.



You are correct…I believe I alluded to this effect in my postings on the incest thread. I have a pretty solid grasp regarding the origins of mutation within a species.
Things like ‘founder’s effect’ have an extreme consequence on an isolated population. The effect is almost always ill-fated. There is no example of a population today (or throughout recorded history, for that matter) which has been isolated and achieved fortunate effects from that sort of mutation. It is almost always fatal, and the isolated species are substandard and very often sterile. Perhaps ‘given time’ after many millennia, an actual fortunate mutation might occur (that would be very theoretical).


How exactly do you know that?

Almost everything takes energy; I know that. Could you be more specific about where specifically energy comes into play in evolution? I'm confused about where energy is passed on to the next generation. If it doesn't how does this related to evolution?

The creation vs. evolution argument eventually comes to a point where analytical thinking clashes with belief systems. Sometimes, the power of a person wanting to believe something is true will internally be much more powerful in their thought processes than analytical thinking.

Con artists, miracle workers, fortune tellers, and magicians are all examples of people who have taken the human trait of wanting to believe something is true and manipulated it. I put religion and politics in with the above livelihoods as having a basis in manipulating this human trait. People have an inherent need to believe some things are true so for them, they are. You can not disprove a belief system. I have hopes politics will someday be more based upon analytically thinking but belief systems seems to be the predominant manner to appeal to masses.

Each person's brain is wired differently. Jung has a good model for describing personality "wiring" and how it affects personal interaction. Likewise, it seems to me there is a mix in each person for thinking via belief systems and thinking analytically.

Belief thinking I associate with terms such as: assumptions, consensus, values, morality, leadership, charisma, or people skills. Analytical thinking I associate with terms such as: logic, analysis, data, conclusions, observation, information, deduction, or problem solver. Both types of thinking are valuable. Belief thinking is great for working with other people. Analytical thinking is great for solving problems.

Some people have a preponderance of belief thinking and others a preponderance of analytical thinking but most are in between. Putting creationism on the same footing as evolution is a example where the belief thinking part of the brain is working but not the analytical part. I expect this is due to the way people are wired.
_______

The analytical presentation of evolution in this thread has been excellent. The posts have saved me much typing as I would have just been repeating what they said and I would have been less coherent.
_______

I have some trivia I remember which came to mind from reading some of the posts in this thread.

Chromosomes are generally pairs. However they are not always paired. Banana plants are very unusually as the chromosomes come in groups of six instead of two.

DNA is not the only chemical structure with the ability to be the basic reproductive template. Slow viruses, now called prions, are proteins which have the ability to function much like DNA. Examples of prions you may or may not be familiar with are Bovine Somatic Encephalitis and Chronic Wasting Disease. I think there are another half dozen known prions but I forget all their specifics. They are extremely difficult to study as the incubation times are many years and detection is problematic.

The second law of thermodynamics specifically sets the criteria for spontaneous change, which is why it is important when examining the process of evolution. It states (according to my college chemistry text-Petrucci, fifth edition) All spontaneous or natural processes produce an increase in the entropy of the universe.
One of the arguments against evolution (this is an erroneous argument, BTW) is that increasing complexities violate the second law of thermo. In a closed system, things should eventually become increasingly entropic by nature- until they arrive at a steady state of disorder. So, under the criteria of universally common ancestry, if we all came about from one celled organisms and gained complexity, this would seem to violate that law. Order would be produced, rather than the opposite. Adding energy into the system speeds the process (like heating gas- or melting ice... Add heat energy, and the solid becomes a liquid and then a gas with substantially increasing entropy).

According to most of the links I've read, the explanation was that the energy released into the system by sunlight afforded and increase in overall entropy, allowing for complexity of organisms. The entropy of the 'system' remained constant, but the increased environmental entropy allowed for decreased life entropy, so the species could be come more complex. The data in nileriver's post (evolutionary psychology), and the attached link I placed in my post suggest that the laws of entropy are actually being demonstrated through increasing complexities within the organisms themselves.

For example, if you open a door in winter, the heat from your fireplace will go out the door faster than it will seep through the cracks of your house. Evolution (according to the article) creates the means for a more purposeful dissolution of energy. Animals are entropy creating machines. We metabolize, we think, we have respiration, we run around. Species are evolving, according to the article, because ordered flow produces energy faster than disordered flow. Evolution is (according to the article) a demonstration of ordered flow causing the more efficient means of increasing entropy.

I thought it was an interesting read.

What does cross-speciation breeding have to do with anything? ::Cough::Strawman::Cough::

Cross-breeding between Cats of Different Species
Cross Breeding of Lions and Tigers.

So retract away.



I'm not trying to be condescending, it's just that the 2LOT is a PRATT. I've provided actual cites that discredit your "proven" point.



Saying it has a clear bias isn't the same as giving evidence of bias.



The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Such systems get no "energy" from outside sources, in which to keep going. The earth gets energy from the sun. They typical spin that creationists put on thermodynamics prevents a whole host of things, including conception, growth, etc. Please explain how any of these are possible.

Think about it for a second: Do you honestly think that scientists would ignore a fundamental law?



So please explain to me why you are more qualified then the National Academies of Science, on the topic of thermodynamics. What is your background in regards to thermodynamics?



It's obvious you don't have the time, that's why you've taken the typical creationist PRATT and you are refusing to see why it's invalid.



Take the plank out of your own eye there, you are calling the scientists who actually study this stuff ignorant! I don't think you are "learning disabled", but I am starting to think you are willfully ignorant.



Spontaneous change? Please define this.

The second law is specifically regarding closed systems. You've left this out many times.

Check this out:

1.I was going under the unspoken assumption that we were referring to unions with reproducing offspring. That would be a criteria for the new species to continue, correct? I have heard of mules before.

2.I have no earthly idea what a 2LOT or PRATT is. I have never visited a creationist website in my life. I didn't see any reference with 2LOT on your link.

3.No idea what you're talking about here. No one in any case is ignoring a natural law. There are differ ways of interpretation regarding how that law works within our system.

4. I'm a chemist, but that is 100 percent irrelevant here. A chemist would know more about entropy than most evolutionary biologists, but that too is irrelevant. I think I've explained the concept of entropy enough, and in great detail. The sources I cited were not my own. Yours and theres are conflicting. You pick which one you like better. Here it is again: entropy in life
But, once again, instead of attacking the merits of the argument you attack me. Somehow I think I know more than the National acedemy of science because I have a different view

5.No idea what you're talking about here. If PRATT is the name of a creationist scientist, the only one I am familiar with is Spetner. So far you haven't refutted anything I've said, aside from the non reproducing interspecies offspring, which I assumed you knew invalidated the point. My argument, in a nutshell, is this:
1. We don't know everything
2. There is evidence that inconclusive science is being suggested as fact
3. see one again

6. Spontaneous change. Here's a short explanation:

The second law actually considers three entropy changes..the entropy change of the system, the entropy change of the surroundings, and the total of the two, called the entropy change of the 'universe'. The expression of that relationship sets the criterion for spontaneous change. The formula is this (S is entropy)

S(universe)=S (total)=S (system)+ S(surroundings)....as long as the temperature is greater than 0 C

If the process produces positive entropy changes in both the system and the surroundings, the process is spontaneous. If both these entropy changes are negative the process is nonspontaneous.

7. Never made that argument. I demonstrated an inconsistency. You aren't reading me posts very thoroughly. But, the second paragraph of that agument is completely bogus. If there is a 'delay' in the natural law, that delay wouldn't react by forming order. That is an explanation of a stall, not creation and propagation of life itself.

There is a clear indication that you believe whoever disagrees with you is either ignorant or evil. Maybe you should work on that. I could've used exactly the same link in favor of evolution, ('willfully and ignorantly') ignoring conflicting interpretation, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Unfortunately science doesn't really see things that way: The borders between species are always fuzzy. However if you wish to assert that a clear difference between species is the inability to reproduce with those of a previous species (yet reproduce within their new species) then I'll throw out the example of the dog.
In addition, reproduction between the examples I've used (the tiger-lion thing) isn't strictly out of the realm of possibility as you seem to assert, it's just extremely difficult.



Whups! I actually meant to say the argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LoT) is a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times). If you haven't visited creationist/or evolutionary websites then I suppose this would be the reason why you've never heard of these two terms.



After some checking around on that site, I have to ask, why do you think it's saying that evolution is against thermodynamics? In an earlier post you mention spontaneous generation was disproven long ago, but you left out of fully formed complex organisms, which was disproven. In any event, abiogenesis's validity has no effect on the validity of evolution, so I fail to see how it's relevant.

In fact the opening page on your link says this:

The major revolution in the last decade is the understanding with an expanded view of thermodynamics, that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws.



1. No one questioned that.
2. Not really, what is 'inconclusive science'?
3. You still haven't given a mechanism that would prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution.



How does spontaneous change relate to evolution?



First: Prove it. Second: define "order" and how it relates to evolutionary theory.



I'm sorry if you feel that way; I bear you no ill will, nor do I think you are ignorant. Maybe you should work on your assignment of attributes .
If you know that you could have used that link in favor of evolution then you are being intentionally deceptive-aren't you?

It helps if you don't misrepresent the second law of thermodynamics. It applies *ONLY* to a closed thermodynamic system, which the earth *ISN'T*! If it was, no life would exist. Nothing could grow, which is a localized reduction in entropy. Wounds couldn't heal. Reproduction couldn't occur. But these things do happen in perfect accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, just as evolution does.

Cephus, I will answer yours first. Simply, the earth is essentially a closed thermodynamic system (with energy being poured in through sunlight). You are wrong. I won't explain that one a twentieth time. Check the link if you prefer: http://www.entropylaw.com/ I think that's about the fifth time it has been posted




1. Thanks for finally checking. It doesn't say that evolution is against thermodynamics. I haven't indicated evolution is against thermodynamics. I have repeatedly stated that evolution is, in fact, a direct demonstration of thermodynamics at work. There is no way that you (or Cephus) are truly reading my posts.

That is THE REVELATION. In otherwords, all of the prior arguments refuting creationist questions with,"You don't understand thermodynamics" were incorrect. Evolution is a direct demonstration of thermodynamic law in progress. Why doesn't that bother you?

Science is supposed to be objective. If direct questions are refuted using bogus arguments to validate a pre-conceived conclusion, that isn't proper science, is it?

2. Inconclusive science is exactly what I was referring to in number one.
Nature gives the mechanism, Meatros. Do you need me to show you two species copulating and not producing viable reproducing offspring?

3. If you don't see the connection there, I can't help you

4. Done on number one. I cannot elaborate any more clearly than I already have. Repeating myself is a total waste of time. I'll define order for you though...it is the opposite of disorder.

5. I'm not being deceptive at all. I am (for the final time) demonstrating a direct inconsistency.
Here's the direct quote from my very first post yesterday, followed by subsequent detailed explaination post of how life does NOT violate the second law:

Yes, but the arguement was that the second law prevented evolution. Life is tied to the environment, you dont see evolution makeing anti gravity cows Like opposable thumbs giving a leg up to life, the earth has energy moveing about, we have a warm core, oceans, an atmosphere. Crystals form, so do other things with order being derived by interaction or the mechinisms. A seed does not do much but die in a plastic cube, put it in the soil and it starts a reaction, the same as if i used laws to strike a matchhead into combustion, the difference between a matchead and lifeforms is we sustain interally the stuff we need to survive, the energy, that is the flaw with the arguement. and no, if you look even at simple germs and cells, they use the energy they have to reproduce, this enegy they are getting by internal mechinims, they same reason you have to feed your dog, unless you want it to die. I still dont know what my tailbone is for That is what makes defineing life hard, self reproducing chemichal compounds to me dont make life, but what is that stuff then???

sorry, last post, i could not help myself.

True, but for years scientists have been challenging that creationists didn't understand the second law of thermodynamics and were pitifully ignorant by their inquiries. Now, they found a neat new idea to expand the second law to offer a valid explanation. Isn't that a bit troubling?

I'll admit, I quickly scanned your post-I figured it was a PRATT. I figured it was the typical creationist 2LoT invalidates evolution. It wasn't, you pulled the wool over my eyes.



What is inconclusive? You are comparing a law to a theory. A law states a phenomenon, a theory describes why the phenomenon happens.

You seem to be building a strawman in the next bit. The point is not that certain species can not interbreed, the point is two similar species can. If there were such cut and dry species lines, then there wouldn't be any interbreeding-but there aren't cut and dry species lines. Far enough back, we all come from the same species of goo (for simplicities sake). The point is that there is *no* mechanism to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution. All microevolution is, is a bunch of changes over a long period of time.



The problem with this is simple: There really isn't a distintion between macro and micro-it's just convient language; that's why macroevolution is a foregone conclusion-because there isn't anything to stop it!



And they have every right to challenge creationists because for the most part, creationists don't understand science. Does this apply to all of them? No, of course not.

I don't understand what you find troubling: Science isn't static, it changes to acquire new knowledge.

Ok, is physics and biology just the second law? how do you explain the equator or the polar caps, the combined physical reality of this world and the universe is slightly more then the 2nd law, and it is still misunderstood, the second law in no shape or fashion destroys or even hinders the theory of evolution. why you may ask, its rather simple, because they still dont understand what they are talking about. The second law arguement to them states that this law within the use of energy or entropy leads to a declined state of being, and this prevents complex life from forming.
This is true in the fact you cant put a human in antaritca butt naked. But the truth in that is life has evolved along with the environment. That is why you have flightless aquatic birds or penguins. Did you know that the method they use for tempeture regulation is by running external or cold veins against internal warm ones, this same method was applied to the makeing of the sr-71 blackbird The simple fact is entropy in a closed system on its own leads to order, not disorder, i gave a link with all you need to know about that, everything by the way, another law of science is energy can not be created nor destroyed, just change its current residence, like its form. the second law might be a good example of why nebula clouds look the way they do after time, or why the sun makes you sweat. This is a closed system for the most part, earth, and within this system we find order out of chaos and still chaos, like current flows in the ocean, or techtonic plate movement, or sand dunes, or crystals that are perfect in math and stucture.

Now if creation scientists want to use why the mechanics of the universe seem to work out, they still have to take into account all kinds of things, like the fact chaos still runs around in the world, why seasons are not always the same in length, temp, and other stuff, why we cant predict tornadoes, or even hurricanes. Lightning clouds anyone,
nothing here bothers me, science changes as it learns, thats why we know the earth is not flat.

Yes the Earth is complex and yes there are many things that cannot be explained or reasoned away. Yes science changes as we learn, such as taking a bath and washing your hands was found to reduce the chances of diseases spreading... How does that support evolution? It doesn't, it just supports the fact that the universe is complex and in all actuality, humans know only a fraction of the mysteries of the universe.

LOL! If energy is being poured in through sunlight, it cannot, BY DEFINITION be a closed thermodynamic system! A closed system is one that does not receive or lose energy to the outside!

Your scientific ignorance is astounding.

CLOSED.

Sadly, too many here seem to be unable to debate without calling anyone who opposes their views ignorant/arrogant/foolish, etc.

We will keep this closed permanently. Perhaps when tempers cool off or the condescension can be put aside, someone can start a similar debate.