God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[blazedaces]

see here and here if you think that the average joe in germany couldnt be persuaded to participate in the holocaust.

the human psyche is a lot more fragile than you give it credit for. you say now that killing is evil and wrong, but how sure are you that you couldnt be driven into bloodlust the same way the average german was? our current attitude towards muslims (and theirs towards us as well) seems to be degrading into exactly the kind of thing that promotes this kind of runaway evil. its already started with places like guantanamo and abu ghraib.

i hate to violate godwin's law like this, but it really is the way nazi germany spun so far out of control. all it takes is one charismatic leader to push us over the brink, and in 50 years people will wonder how it could have come to that.

I had read about the Milgram Experiment before, but never the Stanford Prison Experiment. It's very interesting, but just as others have attacked it beforehand I would agree procedure was not followed in terms of what would be considered a legitamite study. Still, its results are very real and reveal much about the human psyche.

This reminds me about the Kitty Genovese incident: http://ios.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=25&h=53

Some propose that the solution to this problem is simply promoted individualism. If one says to oneself, "I don't care what anyone else is doing, I don't care what they tell me to do, I know to do the following," then perhaps there might be hope after all. I believe this feeds into your proposed topic of epistomology. People are too used to being told what to believe or how to act and find it easier to continue to do so rather then acting upon their own, individualistic accord.

Unfortunetly, individualism still seems a rare feat, but we see it throughout history appear within the masses: many people hid Jews in their homes during the Holocaust, Oskar Schindler, the perpetrators of the underground railroad during the time of black slavery, etc. If you can think of others, please add.

I would like to think there's hope amongst the masses... of individualism, where true righteousness lies.

 

[Deleted member]

Blazed, I make all my own opinions. I am no sheep

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed, I make all my own opinions. I am no sheep

You say this now, yet here you claim otherwise:

If molesting 5 year olds was a common thing to do in North America, you wouldn't question it as bad.

This is exactly what a sheep is, one who is swayed with the common ideologies of the people, not of his own, individual self. I am not questioning your power to make opinions, I am simply pointing out you would choose to base it on the accepted ones of the time dispite their obvious disposition of rancor.

 

[HMWii22]

I don't condone molesting 5 year olds btw, because society says it's wrong.

You kind of shot yourself in the foot here, too. You're saying that the reason you don't condone molesting 5-year-olds is because society told you it's wrong? What about what you think? That's pretty much the most sheep-like thing I've ever seen anyone say. If you truly formed your own opinions, why would you believe in God in the Christian sense? It seems to me that you, as well as every other Christian, have listened to a story called the Bible and decided "yeah, that sounds pretty good" and accepted it, rather than forming your own opinions about deities, supernatural forces etc. or lack thereof. In fact, you've told me yourself that you've never even actually read the Bible. That proves that you're simply accepting these ideas based on the influence of those around you.

Also, with regard to people "making fun of you", you're just going to have to learn to deal with that. When you have a debate, the way it works is that you have an opinion and other people have a different opinion. Sometimes when those other people talk about their opinion it might hurt your feelings, but we don't talk about our feelings in a debate, okay? People probably wouldn't make fun of you as much if you had the skills to argue your way out of a paper bag BTW

Protip: don't use the book you're trying to defend as evidence for the book you're trying to defend.

Heh, if religious people actually heeded this protip the debate would be over pretty fast

 

[Deleted member]

No, my point was is that I do not condone molesting 5 year olds, and the probable reason for this is because society doesn't either. If society generally accepted it, I probably would too.

I personally believe that molesting 5 year olds is wrong. But so does everyone else. This is the consensus of society.

 

[HMWii22]

But you're saying that if it weren't for society your opinion would be completely different. That proves that you do not form your own opinions.

 

[rounder_nk]

With all due respect delorted's general opinion about molesting five year olds seems to be on par with the rest of the nation because the opinion is commonly formed and accepted amongst anyone with a sense of moral. He led himself into a corner by saying that he condones it due to the society's opinion. Most issues in general have a plethora of agreeance because there is normally one outsanding obviously correct side. There are those people that follow the general consensus because they're invertebrates butyou must empathize with the person that thinks violence is morally wrong. Getting back to delorted's case it seems as though he might have his own opinion based on moral values but is expressing it in the generic "because they said so" stock response. He should learn to back up his answers with more definitive evidence and analysis about the issue at hand.

If you read my posts you will have no trouble identifying my strong science based atheistic beliefs however it is necessary to empathize with the prey. Not their flawed purely faithed based beliefs (opinion comming through) but the position they're in during the debate

 

[TheCatPhysician]

Seriously dude, you're so full of **** it's getting on my nerves. Did you even read the post I made trying to explain to you the second law of thermodynamics? How on earth can you be preaching this nonsense, but as soon as it doesn't go your way a "program" goes around it? The second law of thermodynamics applies to all situations under all circumstances. Every process, including biological ones follow the second law of thermodynamics. You're applying the law completely wrong and you still don't understand what it means.

Why is it you still can't explain why water and oil seperate? Is there a program hidden there too?

Having a first cause violates causality. Either causality applies to all things or it doesn't apply at all. There need not be a first cause.

No, things didn't suddenly "not go my way" or whatever. Did you read the article I've been posting about? It's right here. http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

The sun argument is in that article, and I have known about it before I entered this debate. I didn't randomly pull out this program thing to go around the sun argument, it has been in the article the whole time. Let me try and explain why things didn't stop going my way when whoever brought up the sun argument did.

First of all, let me try to summarize what is going on here. I said that non-intelligent, lifeless matter turning into life requires an open system, and was rebuttled with more or less, this argument: "The sun provides energy to the earth, therefore making it an open system." You seem to think that this is where things stopped going my way, and I said that in desperation (correct me if I'm wrong). No, as I said before, I have already known about this, and it's addressed in the article.

Let me try to explain the whole open system vs. closed system thing. First, keep in mind that nothing is fully considered a closed system in all aspects, save for the universe itself. So when you say something is a closed system, you're saying it's relatively closed to whatever you're referring to. I think that was about the worst explanation I've ever given, so let me try to give an example.

Alright, you've got a regular old room with a window, and a ceiling that leaks. Inside the room, there are two objects. We'll say they are (this is just an example) a flower seed planted in a flower pot, and a Gamecube. Now we leave the room to itself, and see how Thermodynamics applies, and see how much these tend towards chaos/randomness/disorder/disorganiseness or whatever you want to say.

Alright, in the flower seed's perspective, this is NOT a closed system. Sunlight can get into the room, and water can leak from the ceiling and land in the flower pot. 2LoT doesn't fully apply anymore, because the sunlight and water are outside sources that are helping the seed grow. So I think it's safe to say that the flower seed has enough resources to be considered in an open system. (I know, this is a bad example, but as long as you get the point.)

From the Gamecube's perspective, you can say that it is in a closed system, regarding it's condition. If the Gamecube was in a theoritically fully closed system, it would still tend to get more disorderly and stuff, just simply from aging. In this room, there's no way it can get in better condition. The main outside sources, sun and water, can only speed up the process of its destruction.



So the reason I said the situation of life from nonlife is a closed system, is because it is going to require more than raw energy from the sun. Technically, you could say that it is still an open system because of the sun, just like you could with the Gamecube. It just depends on how you look at it, and I understand your misunderstanding.

So in conclusion, I say, "it needs to be an open system." You say, "It is. The sun gives energy."

I say, relatively (I should have said this before, it probably would have made things more clear) speaking, it needs more than sunlight to be considered an open system. Here's the quote I used.

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

This can be confusing, because in this, he is saying "in a technically open system (not relatively speaking), it also requires these two items for an increase in complexity." It was my mistake for not clarifying this earlier, and sort of taking this quote out of context. I apologize, and I hope this helps clean things up.

 

[snex]

ive already explained this to you cat physician. those two "rules" are NOT a part of thermodynamics and they are NOT scientific laws. if you want them accepted, then you need to prove them.

why do you insist on trying to pass that article off on us, as if we were stupid? why dont you just admit that the creationist that wrote it is dishonestly misleading people by making them think those two "rules" are a part of thermodymamics when they are not? find them in any thermodynamics textbook, i dare you.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

You're right, the two rules are not a part of thermodynamics. Umm, that was kind of out of the blue? I don't know where that came from, when did I say they were part of thermodynamics?

You probably didn't read my whole post, or just skimmed through it. The second law of thermodynamics is basically just, "the entropy of a closed system cannont decrease." I don't remember saying anything about those two rules being a part of thermodynamics, haha. I'm just saying that in order for the situation (life from non-life) to be considered a relatively open system, it needs more than raw energy from the sun. Let me put this into context with my old example.

Okay, we have the Gamecube in the room, by itself, and it's collecting dust and stuff. In order to make this a relatively open system, we need something like a fan that keeps going in the room, to clean the dust off of the Gamecube and stuff. Now this could be considered relatively open. The entropoy can decrease, now. Notice how I am not saying something like "Thermodynamics says specifically that a fan is required for something to be considered an open system." No, Thermodyanamics of course does not say anything specifically about my crappy examples, or what we are talking about here.

Here is another quote about this from the article, about why these two rules are important:

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

I'm not treating you guys like you're stupid, the reason I keep having to reference you to the same article is because you keep bringing up arguments that are addressed/refuted in the article.

Like this one:

Why is it you still can't explain why water and oil seperate? Is there a program hidden there too?

Not far into the more lengthy of his two Talk.Origins essays (“The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability”), Steiger attributes to “creationists” a:

wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder.

...which he then attempts to dispute by means of a grossly erroneous generalization:

"In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."

The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns.

Actually, this doesn't talk about oil and water specifically, but it's pretty much the same thing. Oil and water seperate, because the molecules in water are polar, and the ones in oil are not. As in the example given, there is no increased information or decreased entropy.

Also check out this quote from a little later in the article:

On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:

“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’”
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

 

[snex]

a gamecube is not life (although it is mostly made of organic molecules), and is therefore not a good analogy.

your (and every other creationist's) problem is that you keep declaring that "organized complexity" or "information" cannot spontaneously increase, but you have no real definition of these concepts. you do nothing but attempt to use examples, and handwave counter-examples, but you NEVER offer formal definitions of these things.

entropy, on the other hand, is very rigorously defined, and can be calculated mathematically.

most creationists are not scientists or mathematicians, so it is understandable that they are unable to rigorously define these things, but when those with PhDs merely make assertions about these things without giving rigorous definitions, they are being dishonest. they are trying to fool you, and they are succeeding. they are doing nothing more than engaging in rhetoric by taking advantage of a few facts about the world, such as:

we live in a modern society filled with designed things.
those designed things are more useful to humans than the things normally found in nature.
many of the things we design are complex, in that they have many independent parts that work together to exhibit a desired function to serve our purposes.

professional creationists ALWAYS fail to address the differences, however. differences such as:

the fact that things we design deteriorate is due to their relative usefulness to us, NOT to entropy increase. (for example, if you are a bacteria, designed antibiotics are extremely bad for you. you prefer a "natural" environment)
living things reproduce, and pass on their genetic code imperfectly; designed things do not.
many human designs are complex, but they are only so out of necessity. a simple design is always preferred to a complex one. living things, on the other hand, are unnecessarily complex. they exhibit evidence of jury-rigged design, not of effecient and elegant planned design.

and again, creationists have NEVER offered rigorous definitions of "organized complexity" or "information." they claim that these things never spontaneously increase, yet they have no real way to look at a system and give a numerical measure of them. they do this because they KNOW that no matter what definition they attempt to give, there will be many counterexamples to show they are wrong.

professional creationists are scam artists. they are not interested in doing science or learning how the world works. they are exploiting the honest faith of non-science-literate religious people for their own profit. they never offer rigorous definitions, make assertions without evidence - often on the spot, and they contradict themselves when it suits their arguments.

they have sold you on the idea not that the bible is the infallible word of god, but that THEY are the infallible interpreters of the bible, that THEY are the infallible interpreters of the universe, and that if you disagree, you are a false christian and will go to hell. you have bought their ploy hook, line and sinker.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

a gamecube is not life (although it is mostly made of organic molecules), and is therefore not a good analogy.

The point was not to compare a Gamecube to life. If you want, you can simply substitute something that is living, but isn't affected by sunlight and water like a plant.

your (and every other creationist's) problem is that you keep declaring that "organized complexity" or "information" cannot spontaneously increase, but you have no real definition of these concepts. you do nothing but attempt to use examples, and handwave counter-examples, but you NEVER offer formal definitions of these things.

entropy, on the other hand, is very rigorously defined, and can be calculated mathematically.

most creationists are not scientists or mathematicians, so it is understandable that they are unable to rigorously define these things, but when those with PhDs merely make assertions about these things without giving rigorous definitions, they are being dishonest. they are trying to fool you, and they are succeeding. they are doing nothing more than engaging in rhetoric by taking advantage of a few facts about the world, such as:

we live in a modern society filled with designed things.
those designed things are more useful to humans than the things normally found in nature.
many of the things we design are complex, in that they have many independent parts that work together to exhibit a desired function to serve our purposes.

professional creationists ALWAYS fail to address the differences, however. differences such as:

the fact that things we design deteriorate is due to their relative usefulness to us, NOT to entropy increase. (for example, if you are a bacteria, designed antibiotics are extremely bad for you. you prefer a "natural" environment)
living things reproduce, and pass on their genetic code imperfectly; designed things do not.
many human designs are complex, but they are only so out of necessity. a simple design is always preferred to a complex one. living things, on the other hand, are unnecessarily complex. they exhibit evidence of jury-rigged design, not of effecient and elegant planned design.

and again, creationists have NEVER offered rigorous definitions of "organized complexity" or "information." they claim that these things never spontaneously increase, yet they have no real way to look at a system and give a numerical measure of them. they do this because they KNOW that no matter what definition they attempt to give, there will be many counterexamples to show they are wrong.

professional creationists are scam artists. they are not interested in doing science or learning how the world works. they are exploiting the honest faith of non-science-literate religious people for their own profit. they never offer rigorous definitions, make assertions without evidence - often on the spot, and they contradict themselves when it suits their arguments.

What you are saying is basically what people wrote to the author of the article, and you should check out his responses.

Go to the article, and at the top there is a box with links to responses from scientists.

they have sold you on the idea not that the bible is the infallible word of god, but that THEY are the infallible interpreters of the bible, that THEY are the infallible interpreters of the universe, and that if you disagree, you are a false christian and will go to hell. you have bought their ploy hook, line and sinker.

Wow. Maybe you should write that to the author of the article, I don't see where he wrote that anywhere. He didn't even mention Christianity, what the heck? I can garuntee that Christians won't say "you're going to hell if you don't believe what I believe about how the universe works." That is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. The most important thing, by far, is that you accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you ask for forgiveness. What you personally believe about how the universe works, if you have already repented and become a Christian and everything, will not affect whether you go to hell. Unless you don't believe in God, but that kind of contradicts you being a Christian.


Also, I encourage you to check out some of these lectures by Dr. A. E Wilder Smith: http://www.wildersmith.org/library.htm

 

[snex]

is cat physician able to think and argue for himself? doesnt seem so. he keeps pointing to his discredited article. maybe cat physician himself should show us where exactly in the article the two "rules" are justified.

dont just tell me to go read it. quote the portion. if it doesnt exist, then find one that does justify the "rules." if you cant defend those "rules" with rigorous formulations, then they are nothing but unbacked assertions made by a scam artist whose bluster you fell for.

Wow. Maybe you should write that to the author of the article, I don't see where he wrote that anywhere. He didn't even mention Christianity, what the heck? I can garuntee that Christians won't say "you're going to hell if you don't believe what I believe about how the universe works." That is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. The most important thing, by far, is that you accept that Jesus died for your sins, and you ask for forgiveness. What you personally believe about how the universe works, if you have already repented and become a Christian and everything, will not affect whether you go to hell. Unless you don't believe in God, but that kind of contradicts you being a Christian.

ah, now you are telling us that YOU, the cat physician, are the infallible interpreter of the bible. all we need to do is accept jesus, because the cat physician says so. anybody who says otherwise (and millions of christians do) arent "real" christians, whatever that means. but they will say the exact same thing. they will say that any christian who accepts evolution isnt a "real" christian. both sides quote their bibles in defense.

who is right? well thats easy. the cat physician is, since his interpretation is correct because he is infallible.

seriously, stop making reference to the same tired article. either back up the claims with SCIENCE or admit that they are not scientific.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

is cat physician able to think and argue for himself? doesnt seem so. he keeps pointing to his discredited article. maybe cat physician himself should show us where exactly in the article the two "rules" are justified.

dont just tell me to go read it. quote the portion. if it doesnt exist, then find one that does justify the "rules." if you cant defend those "rules" with rigorous formulations, then they are nothing but unbacked assertions made by a scam artist whose bluster you fell for.



ah, now you are telling us that YOU, the cat physician, are the infallible interpreter of the bible. all we need to do is accept jesus, because the cat physician says so. anybody who says otherwise (and millions of christians do) arent "real" christians, whatever that means. but they will say the exact same thing. they will say that any christian who accepts evolution isnt a "real" christian. both sides quote their bibles in defense.

who is right? well thats easy. the cat physician is, since his interpretation is correct because he is infallible.

seriously, stop making reference to the same tired article. either back up the claims with SCIENCE or admit that they are not scientific.

When did I say I was infallible? Please stop making such baseless assumptions. And yes, most Christians believe that you need more than to just accept Jesus, and in fact, I do. The Bible says you also need to walk your talk, you can't just ask for forgiveness and keep sinning like you used to. But I can tell you that accepting Christ is THE most important thing about being a Christian. What you think about the universe does not dictate where you will go when you die, it's all about your relationship with Christ. Show me one example of where one of these "scam artists" say you'll go to hell if you don't accept their way of viewing the universe.

I can argue for myself, I seem to have been doing fine so far. But someone asked the guy who wrote the article basically exactly what you are saying, and it would be much better for you to read that. There's pages and pages of replies back and forth between him and scientists, and it would be too much to quote. Why is it so hard to just click the link and see for yourself? Have you even read the article yet?


About the two rules, tell me how they aren't justified. A plant needs photosynthesis to convert and use the energy from the sun, without it, the sun's energy would be useless to it. How does sunlight make it so life can come from non-life? Also, keep in mind how complex a single celled organism is.

 

[snex]

About the two rules, tell me how they aren't justified. A plant needs photosynthesis to convert and use the energy from the sun, without it, the sun's energy would be useless to it. How does sunlight make it so life can come from non-life? Also, keep in mind how complex a single celled organism is.

you havent justified them. no creationist has. you have never defined "organized complexity" (other than as a decrease in entropy, which has already been proven to happen in any open system without the two "rules"), and you have never defined "information."

creationists think that doing science means making up rules out of thin air, and then demanding everybody else disprove them. sorry, thats not science. either justify your rules or admit that they are not a part of science.

 

[TheCatPhysician]

you havent justified them. no creationist has. you have never defined "organized complexity" (other than as a decrease in entropy, which has already been proven to happen in any open system without the two "rules"),

Could you give me an example of this?

and you have never defined "information."

For a whole lot of information about information (lol), go here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

creationists think that doing science means making up rules out of thin air, and then demanding everybody else disprove them. sorry, thats not science. either justify your rules or admit that they are not a part of science.

Again with this quote:

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So how is raw sunlight going to turn nonlife into life, or account for an increase in organized complexity? How does the non-living matter use the energy from the sun without a mechanism to store/convert it?

 

[snex]

Could you give me an example of this?

easy. miller-urey experiment.

For a whole lot of information about information (lol), go here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

none of that is science, none of that is accepted by any field of science, no scientists find it useful to conduct their research, and nobody has ever applied it to successfully measure the "information content" of ANYTHING.

when you can give me an algorithm that gives me a NUMBER to represent how much information a given system has, then you and dembski will be taken seriously.

So how is raw sunlight going to turn nonlife into life, or account for an increase in organized complexity? How does the non-living matter use the energy from the sun without a mechanism to store/convert it?

its irrelevant how it happens, or even if its possible. what we are debating is whether or not the 2LoT forbids it, and you have not made the case that it does.

edit: here's an article thats been saying exactly the same thing i have all along. without the thermo calculations, your argument amounts to mere rhetoric. basically, creationists need to put up or shut up on the matter of 2LoT.

 

[Duke]

Snex, you have still not retracted your sentence that religion is the biggest cause of death/war. Please provide proof of this or retract the claim.

Also, I enjoy the example you give of decreased entropy with less energy; that is, the seperation of water and oil. I asked for the entropic equation of this but you refuse to give it. Water and oil are just not ment to go together, that is like saying "when I throw this book at the wall they won't mix so it has become more organized". That is of course a rediculous statement. Again, snex, I would have to incline that you prove this or, again, retract the claim.

 

[Crimson King]

Snex, you have still not retracted your sentence that religion is the biggest cause of death/war. Please provide proof of this or retract the claim.

The Crusades, 9/11, Israeli-Palestine, American Revolution, War in Iraq, 100 Year War, ect.

Those are just the ones off the top of my head that have religious basis for their murder of people.

 

[snex]

Snex, you have still not retracted your sentence that religion is the biggest cause of death/war. Please provide proof of this or retract the claim.

you have yet to provide any evidence that i even made this claim. stop lying about me you turd.

Also, I enjoy the example you give of decreased entropy with less energy; that is, the seperation of water and oil. I asked for the entropic equation of this but you refuse to give it. Water and oil are just not ment to go together, that is like saying "when I throw this book at the wall they won't mix so it has become more organized". That is of course a rediculous statement. Again, snex, I would have to incline that you prove this or, again, retract the claim.

the equations for water and oil are irrelevant. i explained this to you before.

 

[Duke]

The Crusades, 9/11, Israeli-Palestine, American Revolution, War in Iraq, 100 Year War, ect.

Those are just the ones off the top of my head that have religious basis for their murder of people.

Crimson King you have not just given a full recording of all the words killings. This is obvious no proof that the majority of deaths are caused by religion. And I apologize to snex because I falsely accused him of claiming this when it was someone else but I can't figure out who it was. But I know Eric believes this claim.

Snex, you won't provide the equation because you know you can't prove that it is becoming more organized. It is absolutely relevant that you prove this because you are making a bogus claim and it is your only evidence so far that there are reactions on earth that get more organized with less energy. So stop being a girl and back up your claim or retract it.

 

[Crimson King]

A. Patronizing will get you kicked out of here MIGHTY fast.
B. The wars I listed were caused by religious conflict. The Crusades were launched because Christianity wanted its Holy Land and to purge the Muslim World. It's not justified.

Instead of being a *******, why not PROVE me wrong. Of course proving things is out of your character.

 

[snex]

Snex, you won't provide the equation because you know you can't prove that it is becoming more organized. It is absolutely relevant that you prove this because you are making a bogus claim and it is your only evidence so far that there are reactions on earth that get more organized with less energy. So stop being a girl and back up your claim or retract it.

had you listened to my original post, youd know that the equations have NOTHING to do with organization. thermo equations tell you what reactions will happen and under what conditions.

 

[Duke]

A. Patronizing will get you kicked out of here MIGHTY fast.
B. The wars I listed were caused by religious conflict. The Crusades were launched because Christianity wanted its Holy Land and to purge the Muslim World. It's not justified.

Instead of being a *******, why not PROVE me wrong. Of course proving things is out of your character.

I apologize, and editted, Eric.

You are the one that made the claim so you have to back it up.

 

[Crimson King]

It's in the history books. All the things I listed were based on religion. The Holocaust was started because Hitler, a Christian, didn't like Jews. Take religion out and it wouldn't have existed.

The Palestine/Israeli conflict wouldn't happen if each side didn't have claim to because it's their hold land. Take religion out the equation.

The Crusades would not have happened if there were no Christians and the people they slaughtered would have been able to become prosperous. Take religion out the equation.


9/11 was caused by Muslim fundamentalist against the nation that aids their allies. From there the War in Afghanistan then the War in Iraq began, and many lives were lost. Religion played a BIG part in all that. Until you disprove me or anyone else wrong you are in no position to make any claims. You are just speaking what was told to you from the pulpit instead of using hard, concrete facts. The winners write history. In all the the above ones religion was involved on both sides for the most part so they will paint themselves in a good light. Fortunately historians are unbiased and can give a neutral light on events. Crack a history book, because the bible doesn't mean a thing to me.

 

[typh]

While World War II was not nessecarily caused by religion, there would have been millions less deaths without the genocide of the Jews. It's called a genocide of Jews because they got killed because of their religion. It's ignorant to assume otherwise. I think it's pretty fair to say that Hitler would have had the ambition to take over Europe anyway, and Japan didn't have any religious reasons to go to war.

 

[snex]

rather than say that such atrocities are caused by religion, it is more accurate to say that they were caused by faith. faith that god wants particular things, and approves of violence. faith in flawed socio-economic theories. hypothetically, faith in the lack of god.

however, most atheists do not attain their stance through faith, but rather by reason. most atheists are willing to accept the existence of god if sufficient evidence were to be supplied. that is not to say that atheists cannot be trapped by faith in other things. communist russia and china are prime examples. they had no faith in a god, but they had faith in communism.

regarding the holocaust, it pretty much does owe its existence to religion. anti-semitism was always rampant in europe. martin luther, one of the founders of protestantism, was a rabid anti-semite who openly advocated the burning of synagogues and jewish homes. and there is a long list of european christian scholars following him all the way up until hitler advocating much worse. in mein kampf, hitler declared that he was doing the lord's work by ridding the land of jews.

 

[MikeMan445]

Could you give me an example of this?


For a whole lot of information about information (lol), go here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm



Again with this quote:

So how is raw sunlight going to turn nonlife into life, or account for an increase in organized complexity? How does the non-living matter use the energy from the sun without a mechanism to store/convert it?

TheCatPhysician, I think what snex and others are trying to get you to see is that saying "It couldn't POSSIBLY be this!" is not science.

Dembski and the other quacks saying this stuff are not offering scientific theories, or indeed, anything remotely scientific. This is even apart from the fact that they're idiotically, childishly wrong. In an alternate universe, where they were right and their criticisms made sense (a very distant alternate universe), they STILL wouldn't be offering anything of scientific worth.

Allow me to phrase it another way: they are not offering a theory that is scientifically testable, and disprovable, that works better than evolution. They are not, in fact, positively stating anything. That is part of the reason why they are laughing-stocks.

 

[Scav]

The Crusades, 9/11, Israeli-Palestine, American Revolution, War in Iraq, 100 Year War, ect.

Those are just the ones off the top of my head that have religious basis for their murder of people.

Not to nitpick, but where is it written that the 100 years war had anything to do with religion? It started due to royal sucession arguments, so beyond the "divine right" thing...

 

[snex]

Not to nitpick, but where is it written that the 100 years war had anything to do with religion? It started due to royal sucession arguments, so beyond the "divine right" thing...

well theres also the nutcase who thought god told her to kill the english in battle..

 

[Eor]

well theres also the nutcase who thought god told her to kill the english in battle..

That actually happened 70 or so years after the war started. But you can just replace that war with the war (I dont know the official name) between England and Spain during late 1500s.

 

[Duke]

Snex, water and oil seperating is caused by polarization. It has nothing to do with the organization increasing. Again, prove your claim or retract it. I'm tired of your "look at my posts" crap, all you said was "the equation is irrelevant and you can just see it". That doesn't cut it, snex, and you know it. That is like saying "my stereo won't mix with the wall. DUBYA TEE EFF?! That means they are becoming more organized!". Now, stop playing coy and answer the freakin' question and provide some proof of your rediculous claim. I think you made the claim to just throw something out there that sounded good or maybe you are just impressed that oil actually moves when combined with water. I dunno but it isn't working for me.

 

[snex]

duke, you are a ****ing MORON. im sick of your ******* posts pretending to know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

look you dumb****, the fact that they are separated and not mixed MEANS THAT THEY ARE MORE ORGANIZED THAN IF THEY WERE MIXED. the fact that i can mix them together and watch them separate MEANS THAT INCREASING ENTROPY DOES NOT EQUATE TO DECREASING ORGANIZATION.

if you cant get that through your thick ****ing skull, then you need to take your head out of your *** and stop posting here, because your knowledge on the subject of REMEDIAL sciences is so dismal that you cant even tell the difference between homogenous and heterogenous mixtures, and evolution is an ADVANCED topic.

 

[Duke]

look you dumb****, the fact that they are separated and not mixed MEANS THAT THEY ARE MORE ORGANIZED THAN IF THEY WERE MIXED. the fact that i can mix them together and watch them separate MEANS THAT INCREASING ENTROPY DOES NOT EQUATE TO DECREASING ORGANIZATION.

The fact that you can mix oil and water is amazing because they cannot be mixed together. Do you know anything about molecular structures and polarization? So you are saying that because a south magnet will not connect with a south magnet then that is proof that there are reactions that get more organized with less energy. Way to go snex you really messed that one up. Oh, and in your next post try not to menstruate all over the place. THX!

 

[Brifa]

how did you get approved to be in the debate hall? you're about as thick skulled as anyone i've ever seen, and i live in texas.

either that, or you're being willfully ignorant and deceitful, in which i case i'm still asking: how did you get approved to be in the debate hall?

 

[TheCatPhysician]

easy. miller-urey experiment.

Gah, sorry. I didn't notice that you weren't saying anything about biological systems. Decreased entropy can occur in an open system without those two rules, but these are for biological systems. That is, assuming the rules are correct.

Now let me sum up some of the arguement thus far here:

Me: Abiogenesis can't happen in a (relatively) closed system like that.

You: Yes it can, the sun provides energy.

Me: Raw energy from the sun won't cut it.

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

You: You can't just say that, you have to back it up with an equation. Justify your claims.



Well, if your'e going to say that abiogenesis can occur because of the sun, don't you have to justify your claim as well? I would like to see proof that the sun makes abiogenesis possible.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

Forgive me for being stupid, but why do plants need photosynthesis in order for the sun to cause decreased entropy? Since these two rules don't apply, what do you think would happen if photosynthesis didn't exist? Would the plants still be able to use the sun's energy the way they do?

Can you give me an example of decreased entropy in a biological system, caused by the sun, without the two requirements being fulfilled?

 

[snex]

Gah, sorry. I didn't notice that you weren't saying anything about biological systems. Decreased entropy can occur in an open system without those two rules, but these are for biological systems. That is, assuming the rules are correct.

Now let me sum up some of the arguement thus far here:

Me: Abiogenesis can't happen in a (relatively) closed system like that.

You: Yes it can, the sun provides energy.

Me: Raw energy from the sun won't cut it.

You: You can't just say that, you have to back it up with an equation. Justify your claims.

Well, if your'e going to say that abiogenesis can occur because of the sun, don't you have to justify your claim as well? I would like to see proof that the sun makes abiogenesis possible.

the fact that the molecules that make up life exist means that the chemical reactions required to form them are possible. if the reactions are possible, then all you need is the right conditions and the right amount of energy.

Forgive me for being stupid, but why do plants need photosynthesis in order for the sun to cause decreased entropy? Since these two rules don't apply, what do you think would happen if photosynthesis didn't exist? Would the plants still be able to use the sun's energy the way they do?

Can you give me an example of decreased entropy in a biological system, caused by the sun, without the two requirements being fulfilled?

what does a biological system have to do with it? if the rules dont apply in ANY case, then they arent rules at all. theyre just tools of misdirection to make readers think that evolution violates the 2LoT when it doesnt.

in any case, your question is still easy to answer. see here.

 

[Duke]

Water and Oil

 

[snex]

Water and Oil

has nothing to do with the order of the oil-water system.

if milk and water become less ordered over time due to entropy because they mix, then oil and water become more ordered over time because they separate.

you cant have it both ways. now admit you are wrong that order cannot increase.

 

[blazedaces]

TheCatPhysician, I don't honestly believe you've actually read your own article. The so-called answer to the sun argument is that entropy still increases in an open system, which isn't true. It's obvious if you keep feeding energy in you drive reactions to decrease in entropy. How do rechargeable batteries work? How do you freeze water with pressure instead of temperature?

You also contradict the statement with the above:

Decreased entropy can occur in an open system

You still have no clue what is the second law of thermodynamics, becuase this definitely isn't it: "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy for the last time is a statistical inference, meaning that in freak occurances entropy can still decrease completely on its own. Even if this were the cause your idea of what entropy represents is completely misconstruded. You believe it to be "organization" when it has to do with energy available to do work.

The following things all happen naturally, but all follow the second law of thermodynamics: water freezing, boiling, solidifying, subliming, condensating, water and oil seperating (big hint, lots of things don't dissolve together, water and oil is only one example), salt dissolving in water.

I've told you this over and over again, but you never listen. You're stubborn and don't want to see true science, you only want to see yourself proven right. You have not backed yourself up with more then one site, which means you haven't read any sites that say otherwise. I have come to a few conclusions since you also don't seem to know the meaning of quote: you have not taken high school chemistry, physics, biology, and have never written a research paper of any sort. I have good reason to believe you're not even in high school. Oh and, by the way, these basically all aply to Duke, because he believes that water and oil seperate because they both contain a positive charge (everywhere) and had to look up a site to say the simple statement: like dissolves like because water is polar and oil is not. God, ****en pathetic.

Also, Cat, , since the laws of thermodynamics are made to apply more specifically to heat engines and heat engines have so-called "program" to store/use energy why is it they follow the second law of thermodynamics but everything natural does not according to you? The second law must apply to all things and nature is no exception, there are no programs.

And for God's sake, I said you can't use this program excuse when the second law doesn't apply, I was not enticing you about the sun argument.