creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

reply to post by miriam0566

I hadn't heard of Briane Greene until you mentioned him, so I looked him up. He is certainly a qualified and reputable physicist. His field is string theory, and the popular works for which he is known are based on his work. I must beg leave to doubt that you got your ideas about the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the evolution of life from his books, however. Possibly there has been some misunderstanding?

As for me, well, I followed a bachelor's degree in physics before leaving science to make my living as a writer. Interested as I was in the subject, I wasn't a very original theorist or promising researcher, and the prospect of a life spent teaching physics to high-school students did not attract me. I still follow developments in the subject (at a distance, admittedly) and try to keep up with (or at least, not too far behind) new work being done in the field.

reply to post by Methuselah

Thank you for your psychoanalysis, Methuselah. Off-topic, but fascinating nonetheless.

May I repay you with a suggestion? Try learning your science from other source than creationist websites. Get the pure information -- not facts and falsehoods all jumbled together to try to provide evidence for what is already believed.

Science starts with 'I don't know; let's find out.' Creationism starts with 'This is the truth; let's find evidence to support it.' I'm sure I don't have to belabour the difference between the two approaches.

reply to post by Methuselah


well, if you look at my sources they contain independent references. those independent references are scientific papers...

my sources are all based off of sound, independent scientific research

your sources are all agenda based
mine are independent science

creationism: here's the conclusion, now what facts can we find to support it?
science: here are the facts, hat conclusions can we draw from it?

well, if you look at my sources they contain independent references. those independent references are scientific papers...

my sources are all based off of sound, independent scientific research

your sources are all agenda based
mine are independent science

creationism: here's the conclusion, now what facts can we find to support it?
science: here are the facts, hat conclusions can we draw from it?

if you say so dude, you keep believing what you want to believe.
your sources are all based on someone keeping their job if they even breathe in the direction that evidence may support creation.

Originally posted by Methuselah
if you say so dude, you keep believing what you want to believe.
your sources are all based on someone keeping their job if they even breathe in the direction that evidence may support creation.

yeah, that little conspiracy theory that ben stein seems so keen to make a buck on is complete bunk

if there was any evidence for creationism/id that was real, people would stand to make boatloads of money off of it and win a nobel prize...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Interesting your data restates the errors in c14 dateing as was in my reference then just says all creationist are idiots and misuse the method...............thats scientific.......

It still does no deal with the FACT that nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s contaminated the planet and makes c14 dateing a bit screwy....nor the direct site contamination from local fires. err, forest fires, grass fires, house fires, building fires, how about entire cities on fire.......germany in wwi/wwii, japan had a double whammy with nuke fire.

You seem to miss the point that a laboratory method when taken to the field gets screwed up by real world events.

Then there is volcanos, above and below the oceans.............then the buring of coal, oil, natural gas, all that change the ratio's............

Then the buring of crops after harvest........bon fires for "football" games...........

C14 dateing worded well right up until man discovered fire..........of all forms..............

Originally posted by heliosprime
Interesting your data restates the errors in c14 dateing as was in my reference then just says all creationist are idiots and misuse the method...............thats scientific.......

it isn't restating the errors... it's just pointing out what it's NOT USED FOR. you don't use a standard 12 inch ruler to measure the width of an atom, do you?

could you just provide citation as to where my evidence proved your point?

It still does no deal with the FACT that nuclear testing in the 50s and 60s contaminated the planet and makes c14 dateing a bit screwy....

no evidence for that. that's not a FACT, that's your supposition.

nor the direct site contamination from local fires. err, forest fires, grass fires, house fires, building fires, how about entire cities on fire.......germany in wwi/wwii, japan had a double whammy with nuke fire.

...how would that alter the levels of carbon 14 in everything on the planet?

You seem to miss the point that a laboratory method when taken to the field gets screwed up by real world events.

you seemed to have not read anything i provided.

Then there is volcanos, above and below the oceans.............then the buring of coal, oil, natural gas, all that change the ratio's............

again, you're demonstrating that you didn't read what i provided.

C14 dateing worded well right up until man discovered fire..........of all forms..............

alright, let's just assume (and it is entirely an assumption based on scientific ignorance) that C14 doesn't work. potassium argon dating still works and so do all the other radiometric dating methods.

if there was any evidence for creationism/id that was real, people would stand to make boatloads of money off of it and win a nobel prize...

lol no they wouldnt, just like the dude who suggested that dotors wash their hands between patients got fired. he got fired for making a suggestion that was clearly beneficial and scientific. I forget his name but im sure you know who im talking about.
and just like the cure for cancer, people think that cancer complanies would be banking off of it if they were to market it when the exact opposite is true. the source is natural and its not illegel.

oh and something else that would have to happen. people would have to change some things about their life. government would have to change, laws would have to change, many things about our country alone would have to change and no one wants that.

its not because there is no evidence, that is the furthest thing from the truth. its because we dont want to change to benefit our creator, we only want to benefit ourselves.

This whole creation evolution debate isnt even really about science, its about politics, the media, making money, sustaining power... etc

alright, let's just assume (and it is entirely an assumption based on scientific ignorance) that C14 doesn't work. potassium argon dating still works and so do all the other radiometric dating methods.

well it looks like you are taking the first step into admitting your own defeat with just this one method. possibly others in the near future?

...how would that alter the levels of carbon 14 in everything on the planet?

wow you might want to go back to biology class young grasshoppa.
when plants are burned and or die, they release their carbon back into the atmosphere, both regular and radioactive carbon (C14).
this extra C14 would either make its way back into other plants (which then makes some have more than others) or it causes one area of the atmosphere to contain a greater C14 content until diffusion kicks in.

again, you're demonstrating that you didn't read what i provided.

a lot of your arguments are against common sense. just do the math you will find that you are the one demonstrating that you dont know what you are talking about, just relying on somone elses "science" instead of thinking for yourself.



[edit on 3-5-2008 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah
lol no they wouldnt,

yes, they would.

just like the dude who suggested that dotors wash their hands between patients got fired. he got fired for making a suggestion that was clearly beneficial and scientific. I forget his name but im sure you know who im talking about.

actually, no i don't. i think you'll have to provide a reference here.

and just like the cure for cancer, people think that cancer complanies would be banking off of it if they were to market it when the exact opposite is true. the source is natural and its not illegel.

and its also not scientific. i've already addressed this and you've admitted that you won't change your mind because of how you view certain conspiracies.

oh and something else that would have to happen. people would have to change some things about their life. government would have to change, laws would have to change, many things about our country alone would have to change and no one wants that.

actually...they wouldn't. if you proved that the world was designed by an intelligent thingy it wouldn't necessarily single out what that thingy is

its not because there is no evidence, that is the furthest thing from the truth.

you've yet to provide anything in the way of evidence, just repeated fallacies and a clear ignorance of science.

its because we dont want to change to benefit our creator, we only want to benefit ourselves.

...you're demonstrating hubris. it's either going to be your creator or no creator...

This whole creation evolution debate isnt even really about science, its about politics, the media, making money, sustaining power... etc

no, it isn't. there isn't really much money to be had in the field of evolutionary biology...

alright, let's just assume (and it is entirely an assumption based on scientific ignorance) that C14 doesn't work. potassium argon dating still works and so do all the other radiometric dating methods.

well it looks like you are taking the first step into admitting your own defeat with just this one method. possibly others in the near future?

...i emphasized something to show that you're (as always) putting words in my mouth

wow you might want to go back to biology class young grasshoppa.
when plants are burned and or die, they release their carbon back into the atmosphere, both regular and radioactive carbon (C14).

i believe i was addressing nuclear stuff there...

and again, i've provided a source. the changes in C14 can be accounted for with calibration.

this extra C14 would either make its way back into other plants (which then makes some have more than others) or it causes one area of the atmosphere to contain a greater C14 content until diffusion kicks in.

again, we can calibrate.

a lot of your arguments are against common sense.

common sense isn't the gauge for scientific truth. glass isn't technically a solid. that's not common sense, but it's true.
the world is round. that's also not common sense, it requires mathematics or observation from orbit.
the world goes around the sun. that's also not common sense.

just do the math you will find that you are the one demonstrating that you dont know what you are talking about, just relying on somone elses "science" instead of thinking for yourself.

do what math?
you keep making all sorts of statements about how i don't have science and i don't think for myself, but i do think for myself. i've seen the science and it makes perfect sense.

it's based on evidence, something you've yet to provide.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

do what math?
you keep making all sorts of statements about how i don't have science and i don't think for myself, but i do think for myself. i've seen the science and it makes perfect sense.

it's based on evidence, something you've yet to provide.

Ok, data indicate that the genetic pool of all animals is fracturing and deteriorating. Yet evolution needs to show that gentics is becoming stronger, if one is to believe that only the genetic superior creatures survive.

Killing the Messenger

Ignaz Semmelweis was the doctor who was sacked for proposing that his colleagues could help reduce the incidence of 'childbed fever' by washing their hands.

The case is a tiny bit more complicated than Methuselah makes out.

Semmelweis was able to establish a correlation between hand-washing by doctors and a reduction in outbreaks of childbed fever in maternity wards. What he did not have was any scientific theory or evidence to support the correlation. The link between germs and disease had not yet been established.

What Semmelweis was telling his colleagues was simply, Washing your hands helps reduce puerperal fever in mothers. He had no means to explain why it did, only a set of mortality statistics from his ward. And he was suggesting to his colleagues that they themselves were the carriers of infection! For men dedicated to saving lives, it was a stinging accusation. It is no surprise they rejected it; not only was it offensive, but it was scientifically unsupported by the conventions of the time. This was the 1850s, remember. Statistics and medicine were separate worlds them.

To illustrate the difficulty, think of how long and hard the tobacco industry and its supporters was able to insist that smoking does not cause cancer. It took the health officials and medical professionals decades to make the general public accept that it does. Do you know why? Because, although the weight statistical evidence of a link between smoking and lung cancer was immense, there was no theoretical model to show how cancer is caused by smoking.

The parallels with the Semmelweis case are exact. But we live in a different world now. Science is at once more rigorous and sceptical; great scientists are no longer regarded as oracles by their colleagues (though they may be thought so by layfolk).

The accusation that science is a kind of church and scientists are a combination of priestly caste and closed-shop trade union is one beloved of cranks and the resentfully unsuccessful, but no educated person takes it seriously.

Question for HeliosPrime

data indicate that the genetic pool of all animals is fracturing and deteriorating.

Could you post a link to this 'data', please? It sounds fascinating.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by miriam0566

 

Hello, Miriam. I am sorry to have to tell you that your understanding of entropy, order, chaos and thermodynamics are completely erroneous.

I hadn't heard of Briane Greene until you mentioned him, so I looked him up. He is certainly a qualified and reputable physicist. His field is string theory, and the popular works for which he is known are based on his work. I must beg leave to doubt that you got your ideas about the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the evolution of life from his books, however. Possibly there has been some misunderstanding?

As for me, well, I followed a bachelor's degree in physics before leaving science to make my living as a writer. Interested as I was in the subject, I wasn't a very original theorist or promising researcher, and the prospect of a life spent teaching physics to high-school students did not attract me. I still follow developments in the subject (at a distance, admittedly) and try to keep up with (or at least, not too far behind) new work being done in the field.

i went back and did some research. im not completely erroneous when i say the universe was in low entropy in the beginning (ordered and very hot) and in high entropy now (disordered an cooling).

the papers i read are not the technical papers you read im sure but im guessing the basic jist is there.

i suspect that i may have described it wrong.

the example of an ice cube kept coming up. warm room (universe) and a cold ice cube (system). it kept talking about distributing energy. how the ice cube will even its temperature with its surroundings.

my point is this. something can happen that would form ice again in the glass, but it will never be a cube (arrow of time).

even if the universe reverses its expansion and gets hotter, entropy will increase (black hole)

why do i think life conflicts with entropy? i saw a creationist article on the subject talking about live consuming energy, blah blah blah. my reason for it is because we really don't see too many complex systems existing independently of life.

suns, black holes, gravity wells, planets, comets, while complex (made of various types of atoms) are simple too. they can be predicted with certain accuracy. a comet´s trajectory can be predicted, it doesnt suddenly change direction because of some unseen system.

life breaks all those rules. its complex. if i said a watch (which is a billion times simpler than a single cell organism) slowly developed itself over millions of years, you would call me mad.

even if you break the organism down to its components, it is still complex. DNA is a book, its been suggested that there is even punctuation!

www.pnas.org...

its not just random letters, if life was accidental, it would be random right?

so the question is why, why dont we have complex systems like watches floating through space? simple answer is entropy (arrow of time), order to disorder, complex systems break down to simplier ones.

apply elements (lightning, heat, water etc etc) to an engine, and you get scrap metal, not a better engine, or something different like a watch. egg will always shatter, the bits will never reesemble. cube will always melt, but ice will never form a cube.

maybe its a different entropy, or a different rule im thinking of, please correct me if im wrong

reply to post by miriam0566

Very encouraging to hear you went back and researched this, Miriam. I hope you won't think I'm being patronizing when I say that. I'm a believer in learning, though I also understand exactly what Dylan meant when he sang of

The pain/Of your useless and pointless knowledge

There is no doubt about entropy. It is real. But its existence just doesn't nullify the possibility of life evolving without a creator.

The key to understanding this is to grasp the difference between effects on a local and a universal scale.

Actually, the case for a creator would be stronger if the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by miriam0566

 

Very encouraging to hear you went back and researched this, Miriam. I hope you won't think I'm being patronizing when I say that. I'm a believer in learning, though I also understand exactly what Dylan meant when he sang of

The pain/Of your useless and pointless knowledge

There is no doubt about entropy. It is real. But its existence just doesn't nullify the possibility of life evolving without a creator.

The key to understanding this is to grasp the difference between effects on a local and a universal scale.

Actually, the case for a creator would be stronger if the Second Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist.

then im not sure we are talking about the same entropy (is there more than one?)

because even on a universal scale, we see the same, order to chaos

btw, im glad your not patronizing me. ill be honest, im not an expert. i only understand laymens when it comes to this stuff

[edit on 6-5-2008 by miriam0566]

What BS, using entropy as proof of evolution/////

How stupid and silly can people get?.............The second LAW of thermo is an assumed law..........lack of proof otherwise "assumed" law.

Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics, much more than other concepts, have sparked fierce debate about the very origins of the universe. The Laws of Thermodynamics leave some popular scientific theories in serious doubt. The fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, raises questions about where all of the matter in the universe came from. Interestingly, there are those who shrug off disagreements between the Laws of Thermodynamics and certain popular scientific theories. While the fundamental laws of matter and energy, the Laws of Thermodynamics, are used to measure truth in every other discipline, some scientists ignore these laws as they pertain to their theories. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics define the rules of the natural universe, how do we explain things that those Laws say are not possible? If matter cannot be created, where did it come from? It is certainly here, and nothing natural can create it. This makes a supernatural source more than just a possible conclusion - it makes it the only conclusion that fits the Laws of Thermodynamics. If something exists when natural laws say that it cannot be created, then something or someone operating outside of those laws must be responsible. The Laws of Thermodynamics lead us not only to greater knowledge of the natural universe, but they point us toward answers outside of that universe as well.

www.allaboutscience.org...

Originally posted by heliosprime
What BS, using entropy as proof of evolution/////

Well, since nobody was attempting to do that, I guess the is on you.

How stupid and silly can people get?.............The second LAW of thermo is an assumed law..........lack of proof otherwise "assumed" law.

And you are assuming that such a statement is true because you read it on a web site called Allaboutscience.com?

Allaboutscience.com is a creationist website. It is not a scientifically reliable site. In fact, it is antiscience.

You're quoting 'scientific proof' from an antiscience site? Well, pardon me, but
.

And where's the documentation for your claim that living forms are degenerating? Are you going to slap us with another slice of wet fish from some creationist source and call that your proof?

Creationists are always full of gas and bounce till you ask them to prove their claims. Then all you get is a sad, flaccilating little hiss, dying into silence.

Post some real science or admit your defeat.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Astyanax]

Madnessinmysoul,
My brother you are hillarious with this post. Other than the fact that you have the word "soul" in your "screename" (unless it's a mockery) to admit victory means to admit we know everything there is know about science. HAhahahaha

Come on now!!!!!!! The day when ID and creationism is proven scientifically is still far off being that the academia is in a biast state especially in the U.S. and relies strictly on logic and reason.

The day that science FINALLY surpasses logic and reason is the day when we are near to your "scienitific proof" of creationism and ID.

I really suggest to you that you change the title of your post by at least adding a question mark to it.

I honestly thought better of you, since we have had many great debates on previous posts. This is not something I would have guessed of you. At the very least you entertain me.

reply to post by Astyanax


Yet again you can't argue with the data so you attack the source. Typical of those who fear truth. There are many, many scientist who were brainwashed in school to follow the evolution religion. Yet as they go forth into research, so many find the only answer to the questions raised is a "creator"................

Science and creation are the same. There is little science in evolution.

It would be silly to quote a website that does not show the true science behind creation.

Only the truely ignorant of science believe in evolution.............your mind is closed to the massive amount of science that is creation. You try to cover the enormus odds of how things come to be in evoltion with enormus amounts of time to fill the gaps. It is pure ignorance of the facts, nothing less.

reply to post by heliosprime


There is no science in ID/creationism. There is only science in evolution. Maybe that's why you don't like it - that something so fundamental to our existence can be without God sticking his divine oar in.

Please furnish us with the names of the many, many scientists who have seen the light and found evidence for creationism. Seriously - you'd be up for a nobel prize if you can find just one. You'll get a trip to Stockholm, Sweden, some money, and a medal.

No-one thought up "evolution" and then decided to find evidence to fit it. However someone did think of creationism and now you're all trying to shoe-horn any evidence you can find into this fundamentally-flawed hypothesis. With all the religious zealotry fundies posess, you'd think one of them could have found SOMETHING yet, however not one drop exists.

Unlucky.

1. Everything with a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. The universe had a cause.

4. ID accounts for this causation. Evolution can not account for how the biggest explosion ever caused order instead of disorder. Entropy seems to have worked in reverse for a while at least.

5. Evolution takes non-existant fossils of human evolution and weaves a story.

O, I could keep going, but why bother? There are no fossils that prove evolution. There is no evolution that caused a different species. Merely micro evolution inside of species. I await the fossil record proof....*whistles Jeopardy theme*

O of course the retort is that there is no one fossil that proves evolution. It's a combination of observations.

"concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species

No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.
Scientific American - The Fossil Fallacy

Couldn't ID make the same statement? It's not one single piece of evidence, but a collection of facts that points towards ID. How is evolution any better. Even Dawkins admits that there is no in between fossil record. It's all assumption as much as ID is isn't it?