Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Skeeter]

• He's correct, so it matters not what his profession was.

Why don't you just make the point if you are not using him as an authority?

• He was well versed in science, unlike yourself.

He has an MD but never practiced. He does not have a scientific degree although he probably delved into undergraduate biology. He never participated in any original research. I am versed in scientific method, how well I will let my post reveal.

Why would you find a quote from a science fiction writer more compelling than the word of 97% of scientists?

 

[Skeeter]

The results of experiments need to be interpreted and results need to be replicated by multiple researchers from different angles. A consensus of persons using careful scrutiny create a vision of the cutting edge of knowledge. It is a method of continually improving knowledge not a construction of ultimate truth.

 

[Right Divider]

Why don't you just make the point if you are not using him as an authority?

His point is completely valid.

Science is NOT about how many people believe something.

That is the fallacious appeal to popularity.

He has an MD but never practiced. He does not have a scientific degree although he probably delved into undergraduate biology. He never participated in any original research. I am versed in scientific method, how well I will let my post reveal.

Your posts reveal that you are very scientifically ignorant, since you think that some made up "consensus" means something... it does not.

Why would you find a quote from a science fiction writer more compelling than the word of 97% of scientists?

• 97% is made up nonsense.
• Consensus has NO place in science.

 

[Right Divider]

The results of experiments need to be interpreted and results need to be replicated by multiple researchers from different angles. A consensus of persons using careful scrutiny create a vision of the cutting edge of knowledge. It is a method of continually improving knowledge not a construction of ultimate truth.

Hilarious!!! "a vision"...

100% of them might be wrong. There is NO guarantee that the consensus is correct. Scientific consensus' have been overturned many times in the history of science.

 

[Derf]

Darn, you stole my comeback plan! If you say this because I believe entropy does not contradict evolution, then you are wrong. If you are just cow rowing to your comrades at arms, you are wrong. If you recognize that concept is not as simple as it first seems and we all do not have a complete understanding of it, then kudos to you.

I say this because your posts about entropy are proving the opposite point you're trying to make, but you don't realize it.
Raw energy, like that from the sun, increases entropy.
Entropy doesn't do work, as you suggested.
Both your activity in edging you lawn and activity by other creatures can reduce entropy, but that's because the creatures, including you, are applying information to the situation to add to the total order.

This type of increasing order is seen in the making of a creature--any creature--and therefore it isn't something that a random process can do. Random processes, coupled with energy, increase entropy/decrease order. You may have heard of the "tornado in a junkyard" analogy. You wouldn't expect it to put all the parts together to make a car, even one that doesn't run, by swirling different parts around and banging them into each other. What you get is parts that are less recognizable than when before the tornado started. Why would you think swirling a bunch of molecules around and slamming them into each other would produce a functioning machine ("living creature")?

Atomic bombs are another example. There's lots of energy being imparted into an area. How many of the buildings in Hiroshima were taller, cleaner, and had more elevators in them than before the bomb hit?

 

[Right Divider]

I say this because your posts about entropy are proving the opposite point you're trying to make, but you don't realize it.
Raw energy, like that from the sun, increases entropy.
Entropy doesn't do work, as you suggested.

 

[Skeeter]

I say this because your posts about entropy are proving the opposite point you're trying to make, but you don't realize it.
Raw energy, like that from the sun, increases entropy.
Entropy doesn't do work, as you suggested.

The energy from the sun becomes more ordered but less powerful when it hits the earth. Some energy is stored and some is radiated back out.

I never said entropy does work. I just said it can be defeated by various processes at least temporarily in some area while a cost may be paid in another. And, that includes purely physical processes.

 

[Skeeter]

Hilarious!!! "a vision"...

100% of them might be wrong. There is NO guarantee that the consensus is correct. Scientific consensus' have been overturned many times in the history of science.

You act like that is a flaw. The self-correcting nature of science is its strength. We always act on incomplete understanding, but can be secure that it is the best we have got at the moment.

 

[Right Divider]

You act like that is a flaw. The self-correcting nature of science is its strength.

And yet, at any point in time, the "consensus" can be wrong... like it is with "evolution".

We always act on incomplete understanding, but can be secure that it is the best we have got at the moment.

Not true. The wrong paradigm is wrong even if you think that it's "the best we have got at the moment".

 

[Right Divider]

I say this because your posts about entropy are proving the opposite point you're trying to make, but you don't realize it.
Raw energy, like that from the sun, increases entropy.
Entropy doesn't do work, as you suggested.

The energy from the sun becomes more ordered but less powerful when it hits the earth.

Complete nonsense. Please describe this "more ordered" energy. What "orders" it on the way to earth?

Some energy is stored and some is radiated back out.

That's is completely irrelevant.

I never said entropy does work. I just said it can be defeated by various processes at least temporarily in some area while a cost may be paid in another. And, that includes purely physical processes.

The "various processes" that "defeat entropy" were ALREADY in place. There is no known purely material process that CREATES them (other than the Creator Himself).

 

[Derf]

Entropy involves energy. The overall energy is depleted. The overall order decreases over time, but both order and disorder can be created within the system. An ocean carves a beach creating an intricate ordered coastline, but it tears up rocks decreasing order.

Apparently you understand less about energy than you do about entropy, if that's possible.

Wrong. Ninety-five percent of physicists endorse evolution. They understand entropy well. How can this be?

Maybe they don't understand either biology or evolutionary theory.

The process of evolution involves both increased complexity and decreased complexity depending on the environment. If a more complex form reduces fecundity, it may die out while a simplier form survives. Coach roaches will likely outlast humanity.

The general trend of evolution is toward more complex creatures from less complex creatures. More complex creatures require more information and order.

You understand less about humanity than you do about energy.

A simplistic notion of entropy will not deny well established order in the face of purely physoical forces.

You've shown that an incorrect notion of entropy will most certainly deny truth.

I do not know the precise mechanisms that allowed microbial life to begin but I do now how it developed once started.

No, you don't. As has been pointed out already, there is no mechanism to increase information without a sentient being, and evolutionary theory has eschewed all sentience in the creation and progression of life.

No designer necessary.

Not to have a theory. But to have a viable theory that proposes a decrease in entropy, yes you do need a designer, or someone who can input information to increase order.

We as in Derf and I, Dingus.

I thought your username was "Skeeter", not "Dingus".

 

[Derf]

Are you referring to entropy? It is at work. So, many species have gone extinct. Gravity is at work too, but I still can play catch with my son.

I never said entropy does work. I just said it can be defeated by various processes at least temporarily in some area while a cost may be paid in another. And, that includes purely physical processes.

You can probably see why I was confused.

 

[Skeeter]

Apparently you understand less about energy than you do about entropy, if that's possible.

Maybe they don't understand either biology or evolutionary theory.

The general trend of evolution is toward more complex creatures from less complex creatures. More complex creatures require more information and order.

You understand less about humanity than you do about energy.

You've shown that an incorrect notion of entropy will most certainly deny truth.

No, you don't. As has been pointed out already, there is no mechanism to increase information without a sentient being, and evolutionary theory has eschewed all sentience in the creation and progression of life.


Not to have a theory. But to have a viable theory that proposes a decrease in entropy, yes you do need a designer, or someone who can input information to increase order.

I thought your username was "Skeeter", not "Dingus".

Now, you are going with more snark than substance. Somehow I thought you were better than that.

Can gravity be thwarted without a designer?

 

[Skeeter]

You can probably see why I was confused.

I can see where but do not know why.

 

[Derf]

Now, you are going with more snark than substance. Somehow I thought you were better than that.

Can gravity be thwarted without a designer?

“Better than that” wasn’t working, so I thought I’d try snark. If you won’t listen to snark either, I’m not sure where else to turn.

You’ll have to explain what you mean by thwarting gravity. Gravity is not sentient. It doesn’t have a “will” or intention to be thwarted. Once again you are using terms that can only apply to a designer whom you refuse to acknowledge. Why is that?

 

[Skeeter]

Complete nonsense. Please describe this "more ordered" energy. What "orders" it on the way to earth?

It was free flying energy, now when it hits earth it is stored energy (or energy otherwise absorbed) and deflected energy, What was simple energy flow is now more complex. There is both degradation and creation of more complexity. Much less energy leaves than arrived but the potential for channeling the energy remains on earth ({temporarily}.

 

[Skeeter]

“Better than that” wasn’t working, so I thought I’d try snark. If you won’t listen to snark either, I’m not sure where else to turn.

You’ll have to explain what you mean by thwarting gravity. Gravity is not sentient. It doesn’t have a “will” or intention to be thwarted. Once again you are using terms that can only apply to a designer whom you refuse to acknowledge. Why is that?

If you are so free to anthropomorphize evolution, I have license to do so for gravity. Actually, it is just an informal way of speaking. Gravity, the universal force of attraction between all matter, is a general tendency that can be thwarted. The general tendency of entropy can be thwarted as well. Have you ever seen gravity thwarted without a biological agent?

 

[Right Divider]

It was free flying energy, now when it hits earth it is stored energy (or energy otherwise absorbed) and deflected energy, What was simple energy flow is now more complex.

No, it's not "more complex". Stored energy is no more complex than non-stored energy.

Are you just making things up and you go along? It sure seems that way.

There is both degradation and creation of more complexity.

Nope. There is no "creation of more complexity".

Much less energy leaves than arrived but the potential for channeling the energy remains on earth ({temporarily}.

Irrelevant.

 

[Skeeter]

Two kinds is more complex than one kind is it not?

 

[Right Divider]

Two kinds is more complex than one kind is it not?

Nope. Not necessarily.