St. Tom was right...

[chair]

the plants and animals i see today are pretty much the same as the ones i saw when i was a kid :idunno:

There's a logical argument for you.

 

[Stripe]

my objection to evolution being compatible with God is that, as a theory/concept, evolution relies on random changes to the DNA of descendants of any specific organism, random changes that are more often harmful than beneficial, a population of descendants with a higher proportion of birth defects than microscopically incremental improvements

IOW: Entropy. :banana:

 

[Stripe]

This statement is based on either ignorance, i.e.not understanding thermodynamics, or, if he understands thermodynamics, then he is being dishonest.

Except I didn't say "thermodynamics."

With good reason. The challenge to evolution is from entropy.

Random changes, regardless of how well they are "naturally selected," only ever degrade an information system.

Nothing to do with the flow of heat.

It is false because the laws of thermodynamics are valid in closed systems. The Earth gets energy from the Sun, so it is not a closed system.

Evolution is a closed system.

Why would you leave the sun out of it? Does the sun have magical properties that allow a genome to specially select changes that build information?

If entropy wouldn't allow for evolution, it also wouldn't allow for a seed to grow into a tree.

This only exposes how sold out to Darwinism you are. A tree relies on the information from its genome within the seed to grow. This process is explicable, demonstrable, repeatable and predictive, ie, scientific. You're only comparing it to Darwinism because you need something — anything — to talk about to avoid rationally analyzing the challenge.

It is also false for another reason. The Theory of Evolution isn't progress from less ordered creatures to more ordered ones.

Luckily, that's not part of my challenge. The challenge is that things are said to have gone from simple to greater in terms of the information content. Specifically, the first living organism required a tiny amount of information compared with what the biosphere has today.

It is change over time that makes living things that are better adapted to their environment.

Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Darwinists call it "change" in a bid to define the discussion out of existence. After all, who in their right mind would argue that things don't change?

 

[chair]

Except I didn't say "thermodynamics."

With good reason. The challenge to evolution is from entropy.

The concept of Entropy originates in Thermodynamics. Here's a definition from Webster:
Definition of entropy
1 thermodynamics : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system
broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder.
— James R. Newman

Random changes, regardless of how well they are "naturally selected," only ever degrade an information system.

Nothing to do with the flow of heat.

see the above definition

Evolution is a closed system.

It's not a system at all. Do you know what a "system" is in this context?

Why would you leave the sun out of it? Does the sun have magical properties that allow a genome to specially select changes that build information?

I'm not leaving the sun out of it, and no, it has nothing to do with magic. It has to do with Entropy.

This only exposes how sold out to Darwinism you are. A tree relies on the information from its genome within the seed to grow. This process is explicable, demonstrable, repeatable and predictive, ie, scientific. You're only comparing it to Darwinism because you need something — anything — to talk about to avoid rationally analyzing the challenge.

Stripe. What has more "order"- a 50 foot high tree, some water and nutrients, or a seed?

Luckily, that's not part of my challenge. The challenge is that things are said to have gone from simple to greater in terms of the information content. Specifically, the first living organism required a tiny amount of information compared with what the biosphere has today.

Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Darwinists call it "change" in a bid to define the discussion out of existence. After all, who in their right mind would argue that things don't change?

Well, your definition of Evolution is inaccurate, and challenge all you like, but I won't play that game with you. I won't invest that kind of time with you. If you like, go ahead and post your silly dancing banana at me.

I am focusing on pointing out that you are misusing the concept of entropy. If you can't follow this, perhaps others who read this will be willing to think and learn a little. Even if you aren't.

 

[Stripe]

The concept of Entropy originates in Thermodynamics.

That's nice.

The challenge is from entropy, not thermodynamics.

It's not a system at all.

Fine.

Evolution operates within a closed system that includes the sun.

I'm not leaving the sun out of it.

Sure, you did.

It has nothing to do with magic.

How does the sun convey information onto the biosphere?

What has more "order"- a 50 foot high tree, some water and nutrients, or a seed?

Now you're leaving out the rest of the planet and the sun. :idunno:

Your definition of Evolution is inaccurate.

But you won't explain how. :idunno:

Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

What's inaccurate about it?

Challenge all you like, but I won't play that game with you.

We know. This isn't about science for you. It's a religious devotion.

I won't invest that kind of time with you. If you like, go ahead and post your silly dancing banana at me.

:wave2:

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out. And don't forget to tell everyone about how you're never going to invite me for coffee.

You are misusing the concept of entropy.

Any challenge to Darwinism must be avoided, whatever the cost.

If you can't follow this, perhaps others who read this will be willing to think and learn a little. Even if you aren't.

:yawn:

If you can explain to me what I have gotten wrong and it is valid, I will change what I believe. TOL is the place that facilitated the most radical of overhauls of what I believe. If you think you're going to convince someone else here using good sense ahead of me, you're dreaming.

So far, my characterization of spot on: lots of distractions, not much science.

 

[chair]

Stripe,

If your not going to bother to even try to understand my posts, I'm not going to waste further time on this. Read my post. read what "entropy" means. Go learn what a "system" means in this context- then we'll talk.

Have a nice day.

 

[Stripe]

Have a nice day.

Bye. :wave2:

 

[The Barbarian]

Is this your idea of a rational discussion?

"Entropy", for creationists is a sciencey-sounding buzzword they toss in to make it seem as though they actually know something about science.

For them, it's "entropy is why my kitchen doesn't clean itself", without being able to figure out how the world does clean itself.

The stopper is "name me any process, required for evolution, that is ruled out by the first law of thermodynamics."

Since they usually don't know what processes are required by evolution, and because they almost never have a good understanding of thermodynamics, one usually gets vague and untestable objections.

Not always, though. Not long ago, I was debating that relative rarity, a real scientist creationist. A physicist. Not surprisingly, he didn't mention entropy at all.

 

[Stripe]

The stopper is "name me any process, required for evolution, that is ruled out by the first law of thermodynamics."

It's not even a starter. :idunno:

Darwinists don't know what processes are required by evolution, they think it is "change."

Also, they never have a good understanding of thermodynamics, thinking that if someone says "entropy," it must mean the flow of heat.

Not always, though. Not long ago, I was debating that relative rarity, a real scientist creationist. A physicist. Not surprisingly, he didn't mention entropy at all.

:darwinsm:

Evolutionists are morons.

 

[ok doser]

Not surprisingly, he didn't mention entropy at all.

entropy and thermodynamics in general are best applied to their original use, steam tables

 

[Stripe]

entropy and thermodynamics in general are best applied to their original use, steam tables

The math behind steam tables is applicable in areas like economics that have nothing to do with heat.

Entropy as a concept might have arisen from heat transfer issues, but it has been shown to be a universal concept.

 

[chair]

"Entropy", for creationists is a sciencey-sounding buzzword they toss in to make it seem as though they actually know something about science.

For them, it's "entropy is why my kitchen doesn't clean itself", without being able to figure out how the world does clean itself.

The stopper is "name me any process, required for evolution, that is ruled out by the first law of thermodynamics."

Since they usually don't know what processes are required by evolution, and because they almost never have a good understanding of thermodynamics, one usually gets vague and untestable objections.

Not always, though. Not long ago, I was debating that relative rarity, a real scientist creationist. A physicist. Not surprisingly, he didn't mention entropy at all.

We've been through this before on this site. Eventually it gets to information theory, and then the YEC runs into trouble in defining "information".

 

[Stripe]

We've been through this before on this site. Eventually it gets to information theory, and then the YEC runs into trouble in defining "information".

Nope.

We define our terms and stick with them.

For example:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-its-own-RNA&p=4235552&viewfull=1#post4235552
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-its-own-RNA&p=4236617&viewfull=1#post4236617

To sum up: Information is a code or sequence that conveys meaning. Note how that has nothing to do with heat transfer, yet entropy is a valid description of its properties. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

We've been through this before on this site. Eventually it gets to information theory, and then the YEC runs into trouble in defining "information".

The fun ensues when one informs them that "information", like "entropy", is defined mathematically. Population genetics uses it constantly. But your average creationist doesn't even know what "information" is, much less how it's calculated, or how it would be a problem for evolution.

Another sciencey word they like to drop, but have no idea how it might apply to evolution.

 

[Stripe]

The fun ensues when one informs them that "information", like "entropy", is defined mathematically.

Nope.

There's no mathematical way to properly calculate the meaning value of a data set.

There are things called information in mathematical models, but they do not cover meaning.

Darwinists do not even know what "information" is, much less how it's applied or how it is a problem for evolution.

Another scientific concept they like to avoid.