Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.

Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.

---

and

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumbleguts

It seems reasonable that in a universe that is billions of years old a billion to one shot would come up once in a while. Especially when you multiply those billions of years by all of the days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds in them and all of the billions of galaxies, stars and planets upon which those milliseconds are played out, then it starts to look virtually inevitable.

---

Hey this is no slam dunk debate. Grumbleguts has a good point. But it's not decisive to me. It could be for others. There are other factors too (such as the scientific notion of entropy, which show that things will tend to disorder if left to their own devices, so what has caused nature to not disintegrate toward chaos, especially life) that go into my thinking. All I want to say is that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of scientist on my side of the debate, including Einstein. The atheists love to characterize believers as some sort of Bible thumping simpletons. I just feel that is so unfair, and just stymies the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Hey this is no slam dunk debate. Grumbleguts has a good point. But it's not decisive to me. It could be for others. There are other factors too (such as the scientific notion of entropy, which show that things will tend to disorder if left to their own devices, so what has caused nature to not disintegrate toward chaos, especially life) that go into my thinking. All I want to say is that there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of scientist on my side of the debate, including Einstein. The atheists love to characterize believers as some sort of Bible thumping simpletons. I just feel that is so unfair, and just stymies the debate.

---

Thank you. For what it's worth, I think that you make some valid points as well. I sincerely hope that I have not been guilty of characterising anybody but genuine bible thumping simpletons as such.

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.

Entropy is about kinetic energy being spread about until things approach a state of motionless absolute zero (a state that can never actually be reached due to the first law of thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy). As an example, the creation of stars would appear to be an example of negative entropy. However the overall long-term result of a star's creation is a net increase in the entropy of the universe. Similarly the evolution of life provides only a short term reduction of the local entropy of the energy contained within that life, the net result of all life when viewed as a part of the entire picture of the Earth and the wider universe is no different to the case of stars and planets, a temporary blip. Things are 'degenerating into chaos' or more acurately into stagnation but the time scales are immense, the currently consensus puts the point at which entropy will affect the formation of star systems capable of supporting life at many times greater than the life of the universe so far, don't expect it to happen in the next few weeks.

On your other point, regarding the sides to this debate and their adherents. I should prefer to see a debate as an open discussion where both points of agreement and difference can be established, rather than as an adversarial conflict. You seem like an intelligent and rational man and I would hope that you would agree with this outlook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

It's funny the way scientists' words seem to count all the more when they agree with you but are easily dismissed when they dis-.

Nah, on second thought, I won't get into this. It's just a funny debate to be having. Or following.

---

BG, your thought there reminded me of how Oscar Wilde once said that the trouble with History is that those who win write it. (Meaning those who win the wars, thus all the messy junk is swept under the rug. A case in point: Jolly mentioned that wars are usually fought over religious purposes. The uprisings in India against the British were blamed on the religious beliefs of the Muslims and Hindus, since the rifle cartridges of the day were sealed with grease made from animal fat to make them more weather proof. They were being sealed with sheep fat, an animal, neither religion objected to, but rumors got around that they were sealed with beef and pork fat. No Hindu would defile himself with the beef fat, and no Muslim with the pork fat. War ensued. What was swept under the rug was British imperialism that put the British there in the first place. They came after the wealth of India, just as they went to South Africa for diamonds, and the USA ran Native Americans off their land for gold and silver, or oil. But History records the Sepoy Uprising, The Boer War, and Custer's Last Stand because the people who won wrote it. What would the people on the other side call it? Ask a true Southerner in the USA about the Civil War. It seems that many recall it as the War of Northern Aggression, and the term "Carpetbagger" still leaves a bag taste in the mouths of the Deep South. But then, we lost the war. http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...CMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Pendragon: good point, though one might argue that the winner being the one writing history does not necessarily mean the loser's version is always the correct one. Occasionally, one side wins simply because it has the better arguments, be they made of words or lead.

But that analogy aside, like I said, I'm not really looking to get into this argument since I really cannot see myself adding anything; I'll gladly admit that I'm as close-minded about creationism as I am about astrology, flat earth theory and the idea that Oswald got set up by the FBI. Yes, there are some things science has not yet been able to explain fully, but if the alternative is the idea of an omniscient being snapping its metaphysical fingers and willing life into existence - to me (and I want to stress TO ME) we're entering fairytale land right there.

All I wanted to say with the above statement - which probably came at the wrong point in this thread - was that a few people in this thread and others on the subject have constantly pointed out what they see as flaws in the scientific method itself, arguing that believing in science requires just as much of a leap of faith as, say, God building Eve out of a rib. Yet they still use parts of it - carbon dating or whatever - to defend their own standpoint. I'm not saying that's what you or Virgil are doing, it was just a general observation based on some earlier posts in this thread. But no matter, I've rambled long enough. Like I said, this thread is interesting, though I doubt it will move me even one inch from the idea that life evolves, the stars don't control our fate, the Earth is round and Oswald acted alone. :D

B.G., mon ami, I did not think you were after me, it was just a comment and comparison, and you are correct, I don't think the Southern stories of the Civil War any more reliable than the "official" record. Bias is bias, no matter who is guilty. And to everyone that posts on this thread, I would like to point out that this reply, posted by Beer Good is how a gentleman replies to a statement. Up front, stand by your own belief, don't knock the other man, be friendly. My hat is off to you, sir! May your days be filled with the things you require. God bless. :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beer good

All I wanted to say with the above statement - which probably came at the wrong point in this thread - was that a few people in this thread and others on the subject have constantly pointed out what they see as flaws in the scientific method itself, arguing that believing in science requires just as much of a leap of faith as, say, God building Eve out of a rib.

---

Beer, I have not read the entire thread and don't intend to. You make a valid point. Every conclusion that any of us makes on this subject is inductively drawn. It ultimately comes down to our disposition as to what we give greatest credence to. For instance, the science may just all be an illusion that God has placed for us to test our faith. I respect that. Behind it is a couple of thousand years of continuity in certain beliefs. It is a valid conclusion for some.

Grumbleguts too is reaching a conclusion through inductive reasoning. Both he and I have put a fair amount of faith in science, and so the inductive reasoning I outline above (I don't know if this is yours, I just put it out as an example) fails to convince us. But even given that we put faith in scence, we still draw different conclusions inductivey. In all fairness to him, he has to (from his point of view) prove a negative. He has no choice but to draw an inductive conclusion.

Those that believe in a God who actively performs miracles and intercedes can point to what appears to be empirical evidence. Grumbleguts will then point out why God performs some miracles and not others, and leads to a inductive conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumbleguts

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.

Entropy is about kinetic energy being spread about until things approach a state of motionless absolute zero (a state that can never actually be reached due to the first law of thermodynamics, that of conservation of energy). As an example, the creation of stars would appear to be an example of negative entropy. However the overall long-term result of a star's creation is a net increase in the entropy of the universe. Similarly the evolution of life provides only a short term reduction of the local entropy of the energy contained within that life, the net result of all life when viewed as a part of the entire picture of the Earth and the wider universe is no different to the case of stars and planets, a temporary blip. Things are 'degenerating into chaos' or more acurately into stagnation but the time scales are immense, the currently consensus puts the point at which entropy will affect the formation of star systems capable of supporting life at many times greater than the life of the universe so far, don't expect it to happen in the next few weeks.

---

I must say, I wound up spending an hour at work going through my physics book refreshing my memory of the second law of thermodynamics today. I hadn't thought about it for years. Thanks bringing it up, I actually enjoyed re-learning it. Most of my job deals (actually I should say dealt; I'm now trying to integrate electronic components with mechanical parts) Newtonian mechanics. I will respond to your post in a day or so, but (1) I'm a little tired to go into such thoughts and (2) I probably need a little more time to think it out.

BTW, what's your background? I was actually shocked that someone on lit net brought up any law of thermodynamics. I thought I was being dicey bringing up entropy. What's your background? Physicist, chemist, engineer, or just someone interested in science?

One thing I have looked at from both sides of Belief (without, then within) is that atheists often feel confident about scientific speculation to a similar degree as that at which a theologian feels confident with Doctrine. Does not this confidence often have no proven grounds in many cases? Science is not an atheistic domain - but there is an attitude that is the majority of the confidence bolstering to the atheistic speculations.

While one may say that atheists do not inject anything into their science, they selectively leave out all factors they classify with what they personally do not believe in. This can in no way leave them open-minded enough to discover all of the now invisible factors in science. If one is honest with himself, what really does he have the right to publicly say he is certain enough about?

At work once, an anomily occurred in which there was suddenly just enough units of something in a box in which there had just been one too little. My boss had no idea how it could have happened - but his incredulity could not erase the inexplicable. The proportions for time intervals discovered in archaeological digs in Israel exactly match the ones of events described in the Bible. The thing is, while the Bible gives exact years for the spaces of time, the identical proportions of the time intervals discovered in digs are given values by "scientists" that are guessing. The fact of such identical patterns between record and examination should raise questions about scientific dating. Perhaps the earlier you dig, there is some unrecognized factor that apparently increases the sum of years passed with each older layer. If there be any mistake about the size of the passage of time, then the reckoning of time is off, and, if so, then a great factor is misinterpretted, leading to the universal adaptation of all data.

As it is, certain layers are expected everywhere and all dated alike. Why? Because the layers first discovered in France appeared in a certain order. But what about when a layer is missing at a certain site? Do those accounted for still retain the same dating as those in France? In Turkey, for example, a certain layer of soil looked for on one occasion was missing, so the dates between those assigned to the layers the missing one should have come between are also said to be missing, resulting in a so-called "dark age".

Then there is the whole set of calculations for the ice ages. These were only commenced in recent times, thus, until the relevant observations have been compared for millennia - preferebly through an ice age - much remains sketchy.

"Discovered: the missing link that solves a mystery of evolution"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...747926,00.html

Mililalil, I am at odds to understand the point that you are making in your previous post. Since when did atheists 'own' science? Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Mendel and Pascal, to name but a few were all christians.

What are the "now invisible factors in science" to which you refer and to which atheistical minds must perforce be closed?

What are these mysterious "units of something in a box"? And what point are you trying to make here?

Carbon dating is by no means the only method utilised by science to age things. There are fossil trees of different ages whose rings show identical patterning to each other, giving a continuous record of events dating back far further than the bible would claim is the true age of the Earth.

Your vague imputations regarding missing layers in Turkey do not change the simple fact that it takes millenia to lay down a single strata and further millenia for it to be compressed into rock. I completely miss your point about recording data through an ice age.

Science does not have all of the answers but it is growing more complete daily as new discoveries are made and earlier theories are constantly revised. Compared to this, the efforts of the dogmatists to show how the bible can still be literally true in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary begin to look more and more like someone clutching at straws.

The simple fact is that science is based on experimentation that is both predictable and repeatable. I performed the same experiments for years before class after class of children. Every time I put Calcium into water it fizzed. Every time I added an alkaline solution to Phenolphthalein it turned pink. There is no faith needed to believe in this merely an understanding of the underlying principles and the benefit of experience. There is no corresponding predictability or repeatability in religious faith. Pray for rain and it may rain and it may not, strangely with the same percentage of success as if you had never prayed.

Please explain yourself better and if you must give 'scientific' examples quote their provenence, otherwise they fall into the category of hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grumbleguts

I must address your remarks regarding entropy however as there is a common misconception that any system in which entropy cannot be shown to increase is evidence of outside influence. This is not a valid argument. The second law of thermodynamics only shows that this is true for an 'isolated' system. The Earth is not such a system, in fact no such system truly exists. The entropy of the universe is increasing as the kinetic energy created by the big bang (in my opinion the only valid time and place in the history of the universe where any argument for the existence of God's hand is justified) is converted into other forms and spread out over time.

---

Let me just preface this that I don't profess to be an expert on the laws of physics (I studied them in school, but at an undergraduate level), but I am familiar, probably enough to get myself in trouble, but I think it would be fun to explore this, Grumbleguts. I love your lit net name, btw.

For those that are not familiar, the postulate of the 2nd law of Thermo that we are referring to states that nature doesn't move toward order (entropy being the measurement of disorder) but towards chaos. For instance, a tire with a hole in it doesn't blow in and heal itself (a movement toward order) without external energy applied but it's quite common for a tire to puncture and blow out, a movement toward disorder. I chose this analogy because I see it is as a fitting analogy for the universe. I picture the universe of blowing out like air blowing out of the tire, only the time scale vastly different.

And so I'm stating that because life exists some sort of external energy had to be applied in order to create a highly complex, ordered world (earth) and human beings, otherwise their existence is contrary to the 2nd law. I think Grumbleguts is responding with the earth being a sub-system of a larger system and the overall entropy is still increasing. Is that correct? If so I don't see why it would matter? Something caused this sub-system to move toward order or was it just coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I picture the universe of blowing out like air blowing out of the tire,

---

Virgil, I thought you were against the use of psychotropic substances.

The universe viewed as a giant fart - interesting image Virgil! :lol:

The matter in the universe would therefore be the result of "following through", I suppose?

Are you trying to match me for charm?

A man's reach should exceed his grasp. :nod: