[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism completely refutes ID

[Oran_Taran]

My point is the info...where did the info come from that's guiding this whole process.

It's simple chemistry. Nucleotides (monomers of DNA/RNA) have been found in meteors from space, and scientists have made self replicating RNA and other things from scratch, proving that given the right conditions, the information forms.

Come on Oran, we already went over this. There is no such thing as a isolated system...so your point is irrelevant.

The second law only works in closed systems, meaning that you can't use it to argue against open systems.

So according to your logic, the Second Law does'nt apply to anything...come on...do you really buy that?

it applies to the universe as a whole, or to closed systems. The law itself says it only works for isolated systems.

The only instance where the Second Law does'nt apply is where energy is available and there's a set of intructions to guide the energy into useful work. Even then, the reversal of entropy is temporary.

No, the only istance where it doesn't apply is in PARTS of isolated systems.
So you're saying there are "instructions" on how to build snowflakes?

again, the second law of thermodynamics itself says it only works for isolated systems

you must have some very high credentials to dispense statements like that.

Those are the very basics of evolution. It has nothing to do with creation of matter. You don't need any credentials to know that.

guess is your still a student parroting his professors...am I right? If I'm wrong, then I apologize...but your statements mimic a evolution textbook.

I'm not parroting anyone. Yes, I've taken biology classes, read biology textbooks and websites, and obviously the way it was presented there has an influence of the way I think about it and explain it, but I'm not "parroting" anyone. This is all just from memory.
I'll take that as a compliment though.

attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant.

EXACTLY. What part of "the second law applies ONLY to isolated systems" is so hard to comprehend? It does NOT apply to open systems. Evolution and organisms themselves DO increase entropy in the whole universe, as the useful energy from the sun is converted into heat, which increases the overall entropy of the universe.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

What the hell does that have to do with evolution? evolution says N-O-T-H-I-N-G about creating matter.
Did you mean the big bang? No wonder. You don't even know what evolution is. Tell you what, go find out what evolution really is and THEN start talking about it. OK?

Wow...pretty arrogant there Oran...you must have some very high
credentials to dispense statements like that. Do you hold a Phd in biology
or archeology or something of the like?
Give us your actual field experience working with applied evolution. My guess is your still a student parroting his professors...am I right? If I'm wrong, then I apologize...but your statements mimic a evolution
textbook.

Ph.D. in what? I searched and it says he got "a master's degree in hydraulics in 1948 and a PhD in hydraulic engineering"... Well gee, he knows EVERYTHING about the laws of thermodynamics, biology, and evolution doesn't he.
And what are YOUR credentials anyway? archeology? Has nothing to do with thermodynamics, biology, or evolution.

Strange way to state that there is a obvious reason why the second law arguement doesn't work against evolution. Wonder why he attacks using the second law arguement in one breath then answers his own debate in the next?

Well, he's a PhD after all.

You yourself implied that evolution has something to do with the creation of matter. That is obviously wrong, showing you don't understand the basics of evolution.

That paragraph is pretty arrogant itself.
What are your credentials?

I'm not the one insulting others...I need no credentials to state your being

arrogant. It self apparant.

I'll address the other's issues, but with you sir, I'm done.

Best Wishes Oran

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Define "information".

And that's one hell of an assertion to claim that the genes were always there, do you back the claim that no "information" can be added through mutation?

It's not an outrageous claim if you believe in special creation versus evolution.

A mutation always results in a net loss of information. That's one of the

weakest links in the evolution argument...mutations supposedly are the

mechanism by which organization and therefore information increase.

Information:


in·for·ma·tion (ĭn'fər-mā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

http://www.answers.com/information

Notice all the definitions imply intelligence.

"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."

Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University


Peace

 

[Khristeeanos]

Please, let's try to keep the comments on the issues and not another poster. Thank you so much. :D

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Roger that.

Thanks.

 

[Drew]

Information:

in�for�ma�tion (ĭn'fər-mā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

http://www.answers.com/information

Notice all the definitions imply intelligence.

Respected Australian philosopher David Chalmers (PhD) has stated "physical information is a difference that makes a difference." This definition of information in no way implies that there must be

I am not sure how the dictionary definition is relevant to the argument. In any event, information can indeed "arise" by natural processes. Information does not need to have a "guiding hand" to come into being.

The second law argument is clearly incorrect - Morris is either lying or mistaken. The sun is a giant source of low entropy energy that can drive the process of evolution. The fact that you have found one person with a Phd who does not understand this is interesting but it does not make a very strong case - the vast overwhelming majority of experts will agree that the claim that the 2nd law is inconsistent with evolution is obviously incorrect.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

In any event, information can indeed "arise" by natural processes. Information does not need to have a "guiding hand" to come into being.

The second law argument is clearly incorrect - Morris is either lying or mistaken. The sun is a giant source of low entropy energy that can drive the process of evolution. The fact that you have found one person with a Phd who does not understand this is interesting but it does not make a very strong case - the vast overwhelming majority of experts will agree that the claim that the 2nd law is inconsistent with evolution is obviously incorrect.

There's actually alot of experts in information theory that believe that

evolution and entropy are at odds:

"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."

Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and

communication theory for years at Johns Hopkins University.

He accepted a fellowship in biophysics at that institution, where he worked

on solving problems in signal/noise relationships in DNA electron

micrographs. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary theory,

and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical biology in

prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Nature, and

the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Biophysics.He's got a

good read out called "Not by Chance"...

Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Respected Australian philosopher David Chalmers (PhD) has stated "physical information is a difference that makes a difference." This definition of information in no way implies that there must be...???

????????

I am not sure how the dictionary definition is relevant to the argument.

Define "information

"Here, read this. When you understand it completely, we can begin to have a useful discourse on entropy."

Not necessary. I'm fully aware of the implications of the Second Law.

We used the concepts involved in The Second Law of Thermodynamics

continuously while operating our nuclear reactors and steam turbine

engines in the Navy.

Not just theoretically, but practically everyday...for 6 months stretches at a

time.

It's amazing when evolutionists get backed into a corner how they tend

to attack your intelligence and person...with no basis.

Well then, you're wrong.

...and so are they.

Charlie, you do realize that some people are just stupid?

...yet have biases, agendas, logic problems, schizophrenia...

Repeating a lie, doesn't make that lie true.

Morris is either lying or mistaken.

...one person with a Phd who does not understand this...

It deals with physical phenomenon involving heat transfer. Moreover, as I stated before, it requires a closed system.

It also deals with organization, and the tendency of all systems toward

disorganization. It's meaningless to talk about closed systems and open

systems, when only open systems exist. That's a very

common tactic of supporters of ToE...to resort to the "closed system"

argument...it's so very predictable.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the

exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually

tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an

irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe.

Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible

in the natural world.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is

enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most

important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in

favor of Creationism. Me included. I am a former evolutionist, so I've

been through all the rationalizations that are being expressed on this

forum.

I know the rationalizations inside out, because I used to use them.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a system

requires outside energy and internal information. Evolutionists maintain

that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth,

since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest

that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet.

However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish

this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy

make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once

used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and

produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single

seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe,

and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the

Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again

(assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun?

The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and

break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds

the disorganization process.


The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it

this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14


"Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program... The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."

Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist

The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.

Dr. Wilder-Smith
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
University of Reading, England




Quote:
"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."



Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and

communication theory for years at Johns Hopkins University.

He accepted a fellowship in biophysics at that institution, where he

worked on solving problems in signal/noise relationships in DNA electron

micrographs. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary

theory, and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical

biology in prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology,

Nature, and the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of

Biophysics.He's got a good read out called "Not by Chance"...

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Come on guys...give it up. I've been there, and it does nothing positive

for you. Why not move on to the next level...the Truth.



Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.


John 8:32


Peace

 

[kellivision]

Not necessary. I'm fully aware of the implications of the Second Law.

We used the concepts involved in The Second Law of Thermodynamics

continuously while operating our nuclear reactors and steam turbine

engines in the Navy.

Not just theoretically, but practically everyday...for 6 months stretches at a

time.


It also deals with organization, and the tendency of all systems toward

disorganization. It's meaningless to talk about closed systems and open

systems, when only open systems exist. That's a very

common tactic of supporters of ToE...to resort to the "closed system"

argument...it's so very predictable and a very desperate attempt to

save face.

In all honesty, I have to say I still get surprised, when people use the evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics etc. schtick (sp?) (maybe I am naive). In my opinion, it often stems from a poor misunderstanding of either evolution and reproduction, or the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the second one.

Here's a working and simple definition of the second law of thermodynamics: Energy, if unhindered, tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.

With the above in mind, remember that the Earth and the many organisms in it are capable of harnesssing, using, and in fact hinder the loss of most of the energy provided by the sun.

Also, about your claim that only open systems exist, it so happens that you are wrong. Greenhouses are an example, the cylinder of an engine is another.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the

exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually

tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an

irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe.

Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible

in the natural world.

The evolution of a species, doesn't always result in increasing order (?), and "complexity".

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is

enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most

important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in

favor of Creationism. Me included. I am a former evolutionist, so I've

been through all the rationalizations that are being expressed on this

forum.

Then I doubt the research or study done by the scientists and former "evolutionists".

I know the rationalizations inside out, because I used to use them.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a system

requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain

that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth,

since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest

that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet.

However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish

this great feat?

That's the simplified version, the sun is the main culprit, but other processes are also going on in the background, for example the sythensizing of biochemicals in many living things, as a direct result of the Sun's energy.

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy

make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once

used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and

produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single

seed.

Not being a botanist, I can only hazard a guess. The dead plant lacks the materials necessary for the harnessing of the energy given by the sun. The Second Law giveth, and the Second Law taketh away.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe,

and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the

Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again

(assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

My question is, why should it?

[quote:24eae]The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it

this way:
"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14 [/quote:24eae]

Could you expand a little more on the above, please. As far as I could garner from a short research, teleonomy is a philosophical ideal, based on the supposition that there was design.

"Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program... The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."

Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist

[quote:24eae]The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.

Dr. Wilder-Smith
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
University of Reading, England [/quote:24eae]

I really have no idea what the above quotes are supposed achieve, especially in regards to evolution and its theory.

Quote:
"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."



Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT

Example of "information" gaining, the evolution of the nylon oligomer degradation gene, in some bacteria:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Citation

A more thorough examination:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Gish? Seriously?

Come on guys...give it up. Stop lying to yourselves. I've been there, and

it does nothing positive for you. Why not move on to the next level...the

truth.



Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


John 8:32


Peace

By the same token, can we ask you to stop lying to yourself, because many of us have been where you are (theists and atheists alike), and it certainly did nothing positive for us.

"The truth shall make you free. Unfortunately in some cases especially YECs, it's heard as "the truth shall make you flee".[/quote]

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

By the same token, can we ask you to stop lying to yourself, because many of us have been where you are (theists and atheists alike), and it certainly did nothing positive for us.

"The truth shall make you free. Unfortunately in some cases especially YECs, it's heard as "the truth shall make you flee".

I'd like to know more. Can you elaborate. Having this perspective definitely has

the potential for increasing my fidelity concerning the reverse of my decision.

Gish? Seriously?

Yup.

The evolution of a species, doesn't always result in increasing order (?), and "complexity".

Well, your assuming evolution occurs, which is what were debating.

Could you expand a little more on the above, please. As far as I could garner from a short research, teleonomy is a philosophical ideal, based on the supposition that there was design.

The central feature of teleonomy, as opposed to teleology, is that what are now called "ultimate" processes of natural selection endow organisms with internal mechanisms ("proximal" mechanisms) that act to establish and preserve end states that arise through sequences of steps. The classical examples are embryonic development and, in microbiology, the regulation of enzymatic metabolism. Thus, the organism does not suddenly produce its final anatomy, as theories of preformationism held. Instead, development and metabolic regulation proceed stepwise over time.

Contributed by Tim Perper, PhD, perpcorn@dca.net.

I'll try to address your further points later today...back to my day job.


Peace

 

[Oran_Taran]

Charlie, could you PLEASE stop posting the exact same posts in every single evolution thread? it's very annoying and confusing.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hi Guys.

I' gonna have to delay my postings for just a few days.

I've got a very cool project going on concerning a potential PreClovis metal

smelting furnace, and a bunch of potential metal artifacts made via the

furnace.

The lab has received samples of the metallic material and here's what the

Dr. has to say to date:

-------Original Message-------

From:
Date: 01/17/06 12:43:43
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working


Charlie:

It just arrived via DHL.

I had a quick look and checked the specimens with a strong magnet. There is no metallic iron in any of them. However, both types of specimens are surprisingly dense, considering the sedimentary rock terrane in which they occur.

That brings up a point - could you tell me in which county the site is located? As in big Texas, I know that the counties are relatively small in most cases.

As for the specimens, I am completely mystified at the moment.

I will proceed immediately to get small polished thin sections made of bits of them for microscopic and SEM examination.

In any event, the specimens look very interesting whether they are of natural or human origin. I will get right on the case. I do have a break in mid-February and a lot of points withe Air Canada. How far are you from Dallas? This is the only place Air Canada flies to in Texas aside from Houston. There is some interaction with United, but I don't know if my points will apply with them.


I see that your site is just off xxx. That is a straight run from xxxx, which is about xxx miles xxx of here. ... Actually, annealed cast iron is relatively soft in comparison with most earth materials. My lab technician is already working on the samples.

I got to be all over this. I've been waiting for the appropriate expert in this

field to analyze the material for 6 months....and I got the best!!!


I'll keep ya'll posted. He's got me pumping all kinds of data to him.



Thanks and peace!!

Oh, P.S.- If any of ya'll would like to review these finds, I've got a nice

photo galley located at : http://www.preclovis.com .

 

[Drew]

Here is a quote from a fellow named Mark Isaak. I do not know what his qualifications are.

"The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws"

 

[Drew]

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe,and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

I think that there is a flaw in this argument. Everyone can see that "natural" processes yield order and structure - sand dunes and snowflakes are two examples. The laws of physics gives us a complete story on how the relative disorder of water is transformed into a richly structured snowflake. These laws are perfectly sufficient to explain how the snowflake "gets" its order - no need to invoke a "guiding hand". Important note: I am not arguing against the position that a "guiding hand" is responsible for the existence of these laws in the first place - I actually do believe that. I am only trying to show the flaw in the argument I have quoted (above).

I think the problem with Charlie's argument is that it effectively creates a strawman argument and then attacks the strawman. I do not think that an "evolutionist" will say that energy input to "any old thing" will yield order - whether or not order arises depends very much on the specific composition and structure of the thing in question. So a seed is constitutionally very different from a dead plant. The composition and structure of the seed are such that energy input results in increasing order (without the need to invoke any explanatory mechanisms other than the laws of physics).

A dead plant simply does not have the same composition and structure - and this makes all the difference. To suggest that all structures in the world should increase in their "orderedness" when energy is input to them is simply not a claim any scientist / expert would make in the first place.

Consider the following experiment - take a can and fill the bottom half with red M&Ms (mmmmm......M&Ms) and then the top half with blue M&Ms. Seal the top and shake wildly. Open the can - you will almost certainly see increased disorder - the different-coloured M&Ms will be mixed together.

Now take a can with Brazil nuts and peanuts in it - with the important initial condition that the nuts are all mixed together. Now seal the can and shake wildly. Open the can. The Brazil nuts (larger than peanuts) will all be in a top layer and the peanuts will all be in a lower layer - a more ordered state than the initial conditon. The following is a quote from someone else:

"This phenomenon is known as the “Brazil Nut Effect†and illustrates the physical process called kinetic sieving, where an initially homogeneous mixture is sorted by size, with the larger particles overlying the smaller ones. When materials are shaken, voids are continually being created beneath grains. The smaller grains (such as sand or peanuts) are more likely to fall in and fill the available space. This process is primarily a function of particle size (with density also playing a role)."

The point being: in one case, the input of energy (shaking) produced disorder, in the other case order was produced. I believes this illustration shows the error in Charlie's argument. The difference depends on the specifics of the contents of the can.

The can of M&Ms is analagous to the dead plant - the input of energy produces disorder.

The can of nuts is analogous to the seed - the input of energy produces order.

The error in Charlie's argument is the presumption that "evolutionists" claim that all systems will tend to increasing order when energy is input. No one has ever claimed this.

 

[Oran_Taran]

I think the problem with Charlie's argument is that it effectively creates a strawman argument and then attacks the strawman.

That's IT! that's EXACTLY what most creationists are doing. (notice I said most, not all ... lol) They're creating straw men.
wikipedia, straw man:

straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1.Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

 

[ArtGuy]

The problem with your argument there, Oran, is that it presumes that everything that every Creationist ever says on any topic, not just limited to evolution, is a strawman. Since I can cite at least one instance of a Creationist saying something that isn't a strawman, your argument is deftly defeated.

QED

 

[PDoug]

How was what I said irrelevant?

Because you're using assumptions not supported by evolution. You can't change the theory in order to disprove it.

But my response was to something you said, countering my assertion that the principle of something creating another thing significantly greater than itself, cannot be seen around us. Therefore the whole line of our conversation was not about evolution, it was about the aforementioned principle. Therefore I maintain what I said before, which is as follows:

My point is that it is reasonable to dismiss the case of two disabled human beings creating a normal human being, because when all is said and done, humans have never created other humans that were substantially greater than those found in the general population.

Note the next point you made:

the population in Egypt 5,000 years ago started out having the range of human capabilities as the rest of the world, and it somehow evolved during that time, wouldn't you find Egyptian individuals having abilities significantly greater than the rest of the world?

5,000 years is most definately not long enough for a population of humans (long chlidhoods, not many predators, not much selection really) to have evolved "abilities significantly greater" than anyone. Besides, humans are always moving around. Humans travel around the world and breed with others from far away.
And yes, 5,000 years may be a long time for humans, but in the evolutionary time scale it's just a blink of an eye.

Fine. Let's discard the above line of reasoning, and stay focused the principle I talked about in my first response above: that of something being incapable of creating another thing substantially greater than itself.

It need only be creatures giving rise to a creature, showing traits that lie outside the range of the population of the specie, with that creature being overall more fit than members of its specie.

You mean beneficial mutations? well, that HAS been observed. From bacterial resistance to antibiotics, to insects developing resistance to ARTIFICIAL insecticides, to bacteria being able to digest ARTIFICIAL fibers, even to those human examples I gave earlier.

The problem with beneficial mutations, are that they occur in the vein of sickle cell anemia. They will produce new traits in an organism, to the detriment of the organism's other functions. This does not produce an overall increase in an organism's abilities - just a shifting of resources within the organism.

 

[Oran_Taran]

The problem with your argument there, Oran, is that it presumes that everything that every Creationist ever says on any topic, not just limited to evolution, is a strawman. Since I can cite at least one instance of a Creationist saying something that isn't a strawman, your argument is deftly defeated.

LOL... did you do that on purpose? you just created a strawman! I didn't say everything that every creationist ever says on any topic, not just evolution, is a strawman. In fact, I clearly stated that it was what MOST creationists were doing, not all. And since there ARE creationists not creating straw men, then obviously not everything every creationist ever says on any topic (I was specifically talking about evolution/creationism) is a straw man....

That's IT! that's EXACTLY what most creationists are doing. (notice I said most, not all ... lol) They're creating straw men.

^^^ what I said in my previous post

countering my assertion that the principle of something creating another thing significantly greater than itself, cannot be seen around us.

Ok, I was wrong to say things can create other things significantly grater than themselves. (if I did say that... I'm forgetting already). Evolution does not say that, it says organisms have offspring that are slightly better at surviving than their parents.

Let's discard the above line of reasoning, and stay focused the principle I talked about in my first response above: that of something being incapable of creating another thing substantially greater than itself.

Ok, and you're right. organisms can't create other organisms "substantially greater" than themselves. Only SLIGHTLY better.

The problem with beneficial mutations, are that they occur in the vein of sickle cell anemia. They will produce new traits in an organism, to the detriment of the organism's other functions. This does not produce an overall increase in an organism's abilities - just a shifting of resources within the organism.

Well, sickle cell anemia only illustrates that beneficial mutations aren't something absoulte. What's a bad mutation somewhere could be a good mutation somewhere else. It's like say, a mutation that gives you more hair... it may be bad if you're a dolphin, but it could be good if you live in the poles or something.
And you're right, a lot of times you do exchange resources. (in fact, I was just reading about that yesterday in my book, lol) For example, while many birds may benefit from FOUR legs, not a single bird in existance has them. That's because birds evolved from reptiles, which only have four legs, and turned their upper limbs into wings. They gave up two limbs in exchange for wings.
What you're wrong on is that overall part. Overall, having wings (in the case of birds anyway) is better than having four legs and no wings. Yes, they did give up something, but what they gained was far better than what they lost, therefore they DID have an overall increase in their abilities.
Humans also show that. When humans started walking upright, we exchanged some things for others. Sure, we can walk in two legs, but as a consequence we also get backpains, the tissues that hold our intestines in place are more prone to rip, we got knee problems, and a lot of other issues came along with our ability to walk on two legs.
Same with other beneficial mutations, like antibiotic resistance. It may slightly affect the rate of division (in bacteria), but the benefits of having antibiotic resistance are much greater than the advantage of reproducing slightly bit faster.
You see that exchange with basically everything, but the fact remains, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

 

[ArtGuy]

The problem with your argument there, Oran, is that it presumes that everything that every Creationist ever says on any topic, not just limited to evolution, is a strawman. Since I can cite at least one instance of a Creationist saying something that isn't a strawman, your argument is deftly defeated.

LOL... did you do that on purpose?

Yes. You need to dust off your irony sensor.

 

[Heidi]

The problem with your argument there, Oran, is that it presumes that everything that every Creationist ever says on any topic, not just limited to evolution, is a strawman. Since I can cite at least one instance of a Creationist saying something that isn't a strawman, your argument is deftly defeated.

LOL... did you do that on purpose?

Yes. You need to dust off your irony sensor.

If unbelievers say creationists have strawmen arguments, then so do they. They simply have decided that humans came from apes and go from there. Beliefs always come from a premise. Always.