More fuel to the Psychoreligionology fire

[kalooki45]

THanks Maurile--
It's always a problem with new areas--first you have to learn their language! lol
Do they have different terms for reptile-to-bird, than they do for yellow-rose-to-pink-rose? Or is it all lumped together?
More broccoli, please [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Sounds like a goodie.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Do they have different terms for reptile-to-bird, than they do for yellow-rose-to-pink-rose?

[/ QUOTE ]
They are sometimes referred to as 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution,' respectively.

[kalooki45]

Hi Maurile,
Today I got a response to the quote of yours that I sent off to the Creation Science people. Personally, I don't have a position on this issue--I don't know enough to have one. However, I think you're never to old to learn something! I really do appreciate your taking the time to read and answer these things.
I copy it here.

Question: "Why can't creationists understand that their entropy argument against evolution is completely irrelevant, since the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems and the earth is an open system?"

Answer (by Henry Morris): Why won't evolutionists quit echoing this irrelevant canard, and listen to what creationists actually are saying?

Evolutionists seem to think that the principles of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems but professional thermodynamicists never say this.
The imaginary age-long evolution of the biosphere must, of course, be discussed in terms of open-system thermodynamics, but this fact in no way helps the case for evolution.

The influx of heat energy into an open system (as, say, from the sun onto the earth) will not naturally improve the organization of that system, as evolution would require, but will increase the entropy (that is, the disorganization) of the system more rapidly than if the system remained closed.

To verify this, one need only examine the simple thermodynamic equation for heat flow into an open system. Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution?
Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth?

The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism.
For example, the growth of a seed into a plant is directed by its genetic code and implemented by the mechanism of photosynthesis. Similarly the "evolution" of a building from a pile of bricks and lumber is directed by a blueprint and implemented by the construction machinery and the muscular skills of the builders.
The evolution of the earth's biosphere in the space/time continuum, from primeval chemicals to a complex array of plants, animals and human beings represents a far greater increase in organized complexity than a plant or a building, yet it apparently had no directing program (chance?) and no solar energy conversion mechanism (mutations?).
Thus, the entropy principle does indeed define any significant amount of upward naturalistic evolution as completely unscientific. Evolution would require an unending string of miracles to make it work!

In the Creator's service,

Deborah S. Brooks
ICR Public Information Office

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: "Why can't creationists understand that their entropy argument against evolution is completely irrelevant, since the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems and the earth is an open system?"

Answer (by Henry Morris): Why won't evolutionists quit echoing this irrelevant canard, and listen to what creationists actually are saying?

Evolutionists seem to think that the principles of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems but professional thermodynamicists never say this.

[/ QUOTE ]
When it comes to the second law of thermodynamics they do. (There are other principles of thermodynamics that apply to open systems.)

"That is, in an isolated system, the only processes that can occur are those that have an increase in entropy associated with them." -- Wylen and Sonntag, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics tells us nothing about what must happen to the entropy of an open system. It may increase, or it may decrease.

[ QUOTE ]
The imaginary age-long evolution of the biosphere must, of course, be discussed in terms of open-system thermodynamics, but this fact in no way helps the case for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
The second law of thermodynamics is not part of open-system thermodynamics.

[ QUOTE ]
The influx of heat energy into an open system (as, say, from the sun onto the earth) will not naturally improve the organization of that system, as evolution would require, but will increase the entropy (that is, the disorganization) of the system more rapidly than if the system remained closed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about heat? There's a lot more to solar energy than heat. Specifically, photosynthesis isn't driven by solar heat; it's driven by solar light.

[ QUOTE ]
To verify this, one need only examine the simple thermodynamic equation for heat flow into an open system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please write back to ICR.org and see if they can provide the equation. (The equation for classical entropy says that a local decrease in entropy requires work, not heat.)

[ QUOTE ]
Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]
Link? Obviously, solar energy isn't sufficient to account for evolution. Evolution requires, like, replicators and stuff as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth?

[/ QUOTE ]
The surface temperature on Venus is about 500 degrees centigrade. I'm not saying that means life there is impossible, but it'd be life quite unlike we know it.

Mars may actually have (or have had) life on it, for all we know.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Morris is just making stuff up here. The requirements for a local decrease in entropy are: (a) an open system, (b) an external energy source, and (c) some mechanism for using the energy to do work.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the growth of a seed into a plant is directed by its genetic code and implemented by the mechanism of photosynthesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good. I'm glad Morris doesn't think the growth of a seed into a plant violates any laws of thermodynamics.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly the "evolution" of a building from a pile of bricks and lumber is directed by a blueprint and implemented by the construction machinery and the muscular skills of the builders.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't require a blueprint. Just work. (And what is it about constructing a building, exactly, that seems like "evolution"? The building doesn't reproduce. It doesn't mutate. Heck, it's not even clear that constructing a building results in a decrease in entropy. Do sheets of plywood with nails driven through them have lower entropy than whole sheets of plywood bundled together?)

[ QUOTE ]
The evolution of the earth's biosphere in the space/time continuum, from primeval chemicals to a complex array of plants, animals and human beings represents a far greater increase in organized complexity than a plant or a building, yet it apparently had no directing program (chance?) and no solar energy conversion mechanism (mutations?).

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's make this simple. Evolution requires three things for it to work: reproduction, mutation, and selection. Which one is supposed to violate physical laws?

We know that reproduction happens -- some of us may have even done it personally -- so that evidently doesn't violate any physical laws. We also know that mutations happen, so they don't violate any physical laws, either. How about selection? When a lion kills a slower zebra instead of a faster one (thus selecting for speed in zebras), what physical law does that violate?

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, the entropy principle does indeed define any significant amount of upward naturalistic evolution as completely unscientific. Evolution would require an unending string of miracles to make it work!

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL at calling something that's been directly observed "unscientific."

Let's get really crazy and say, just for the sake of argument, that evolution violates our theories about thermodynamics. What would that mean?

It would mean that our theories of thermodynamics are wrong, and are in need or revision.

When a theory conflicts with our observations, it doesn't mean we've been observing a "miracle." It means the theory is no good.

[kalooki45]

Hi Maurile,
I'll be happy to write them again, but I need to be sure what to ask. (You don't get a lot of space for questions)
Shall I quote your comment on the 2nd Law and see what they say? Is there anything to add on, in order to get a clearer idea of the disagreement?
Thanks!
[ QUOTE ]

Morris:
"The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Now here I understand him to be saying that energy and an open system are not enough; there must be some sort of energy conversion method in order for it (energy) to be used. By implication, I guess he is saying that evolution doesn't explain to development of the "first" organic energy converter?

[ QUOTE ]

Morris is just making stuff up here. The requirements for a local decrease in entropy are: (a) an open system, (b) an external energy source, and (c) some mechanism for using the energy to do work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer (c) seems to be making about the same point?


[ QUOTE ]
Let's make this simple. Evolution requires three things for it to work: reproduction, mutation, and selection. Which one is supposed to violate physical laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

This point you make here about evolution seems to have skipped over the "first" proposition, and gone directly to reproduction, which would of course require at least two sexually functioning organisms?

Does Evolution purport to explain the absolute beginning of life, or does it restrict itself to a "post-life" phase?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Henry Morris thinks that refrigerators are also mathematically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read the Coppedge book? About half of it is now online at http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_tp.htm

[SnakeRat]

The absolute beggining of life happened by accident.

[ QUOTE ]
A Deck of Cards


Ever hear impossibly-large numbers quoted as the odds against a cell or a particular DNA molecule having formed "by accident" to create the first living thing? It's an example of the propensity of creationists to entirely miss the point and set up a specious straw man, ripe for destruction. Ronald Stearns suggests the following to help them see where they are missing the point:
One demonstration that has worked well for me in illustrating the difference between a priori and a posteriori calculations just uses a deck of cards. Give someone a deck of cards, ask him to shuffle it, and then read off the first 26 cards. After your subject does that, jump at him and question his veracity. "You don't really expect me to believe that sequence is what you pulled up, is it? The odds against getting exactly that sequence is 2 x 10 41-to-1 against!" Then, of course, explain that what the odds were before the exercise is irrelevant, because what is important is that SOME sequence occurred, and that the idea is to understand what that sequence actually was, not what the chances were of obtaining that sequence. If your subject has kept the stack of cards intact, then you can show that you have the evidence. It also looks a lot like a set of geological strata, and you can show that it remains valid even if you take the stack and slide it around, twist it, and fold it a bit, [to provide an analogy for how] geologists really can still unlock the story of geological history, with a lot of work.


And a further suggestion from Jay Laudig:
Begin by asking a creationist if he denies his own existence, or the fact that he was produced by the sexual reproduction of his parents. Assuming he says yes (if he says no, creationism is the least of his problems) point out the odds that his parents produced HIM, specifically, are one in 70 trillion (roughly). This is based on the 46 total chromosomes, each a 1 in 2 shot, contributed by his parents. If those odds aren't astronomical enough, go after his grandparents next. (Admittedly the chromosomal probability is a simplification of the entire process...but any further complications would only make an individual LESS likely, so the argument works fairly well.)


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.skepticreport.com/creatio...onistshate.htm


Be skeptical of evolution all you want, but I am quite sure if you applied the same sincere skepticism to biblical creationism you could not believe one word of it.
The fantasy universe you currently live in would fall like a house of cards.

Why not click the link I provided and check out the numerous, blatant, and signifigant flaws in bible?

[kalooki45]

Hi Snake,

Tell you what--I'll check your link if you check out this:
Apologetics Press--Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible

If you want a couple volumes worth of detail, you can try "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell.

As I said earlier, in Genesis the order of creation is the same as the one science postulates. It pre-dates Darwin by many thousands of years, and was written at a time when people not only thought the earth was flat, but a lot thought it was on the back of a giant turtle or some such thing.
And as a matter of fact--I *think it's in Job--the earth is described as a "hanging orb"!

My belief in God is something else again. That's experiential. The hard part is that it's like trying to tell someone who lacks a sense of smell about a rose!

He's there and He loves you [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Whether you or I believe in Him doesn't affect His existence..he's not a beggar--He's a king!

He generously offers to share life in Eternity with him...and I think there's a part of YOU that responds to this. People make the mistake of thinking that Christianity is all about giving up everything they like--it's not.
It's about ACQUIRING the riches of heaven, eternal salvation, and knowledge of God himself! It's about admitting that *maybe the Person who runs the universe might be able to give YOU some pointers on YOUR life! Perhaps He knows how to run your life better than YOU do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sure God will ask for sacrifices, but first He will give you the Faith to make them--He doesn't require you to "go it alone".
"Behold, I am with you ALWAYS.."

[NotReady]

First, 2X10 to 41 is a tiny number compared to the number that represents the odds of life accidentally being produced by non-life. See my post below on Coppedge. When time is factored in the odds are beyond astronomical.

Second, your example requires no particular result, any random sequence is fine. Life requires a particlar result, as does evolution.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be happy to write them again, but I need to be sure what to ask. (You don't get a lot of space for questions) Shall I quote your comment on the 2nd Law and see what they say?

[/ QUOTE ]
They'll just say the same thing. Their first answer back to you wasn't a personalized email. It was copied and pasted from their FAQ.

[ QUOTE ]
Now here I understand him to be saying that energy and an open system are not enough; there must be some sort of energy conversion method in order for it (energy) to be used. By implication, I guess he is saying that evolution doesn't explain to development of the "first" organic energy converter?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what he's saying, but there's plenty of ways to achieve localized decreases in entropy without an "organic" energy converter. Examples include the formation of snowflakes, the formation of clouds, and ripples in sand dunes.

[ QUOTE ]
This point you make here about evolution seems to have skipped over the "first" proposition, and gone directly to reproduction, which would of course require at least two sexually functioning organisms?

[/ QUOTE ]
Or one asexual organism. Or not really an organism, but some kind of replicator.

Yes, that's where evolution starts: with a replicator whose copies can be mutated.

How the first replicator was formed is outside the scope of evolutionary biology; it is referred to as abiogenesis.