Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....

by Shining One 107 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ellderwho

  Satanus,

  Perhaps your right, our world views differ in how we make an account for order in them, good chatting.

  EW
• 

  Abaddon

  Shiny

  Behe explains this in Darwin's Black Box.

  Er... yes, if you say so... however, as Behe;

  ... a biochemist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, proposed a definition of theory that he had to admit was so broad, it would include astrology.

  ... and as;

  Under cross examination, he also conceded that his definition of a theory was almost identical to the NAS' definition of a hypothesis.

  ... I think what Behe says or doesn't say isn't particulary important. A scientist who cannot seperate hypothesis from theory, and tries to push ideas with no more validity than astrology as 'science' can't really be regarded as competent.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/100440/1.ashx

  Why do you feel quoting incompetent and incautious 'scientists' is a good thing to do to support your superstisions Shiny?
• 

  Abaddon

  
  Shiny

  >Why would "god" leave a trail of evidence that looks like evolution happened?
  
  
  He doesn't do that, that's the point. Macro-evolution and transitional species do not occur.

  Yet again you make claims about evolution which show you don't know an awful lot about it. As your resources seem to consist mostly of unqualified or incompetent Creationist propogandists, this is not surprising.

  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  As I took the time and trouble to show the inadequacy of the article you posted in its entirity, I look forward to you attemting to rebutt each of the evidences provided in the above link. I know you won't. I know you can't. But I am an optimist.

  You have great leaps in development suddenly, viz the Cambrian Explosion.

  You really, really, really don't know a lot about Evolution do you? And yet you have claimed before that you studied evolution. Not nearly enough to avoid embaressing yourself...

  Claim CC300: Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

  You are a eternal soul living a physical existence, you have free will and a choice, you will never leave a consious existence, if you end up separated from God eternally it is your own fault for not taking advantage of grace freely offered.

  Oh please, you'll have to speak a little louder; I can hear Seikhs, Muslims, Hindus and Christians who consider your philosophy flawed all telling me they are right too... and you cannot, as has previously been noted, seperate the validity of your beliefs from a Shamen in a bear-skin. As it is demonstrably impossible to determine which claim is "truth" then if there IS a god, it is certainly god's responsibility for the confusion. QED.

  Book of the Month Club can let you know with absolute certainty that they exsist, what they want you to do, and what they will give you if you do it. If you do it, you will get what they said you'd get.

  No religion can show itself to be more reliable than Book of the Month Club. They are far more similar to 419 scams.

  The universe is 'winding down', it had a beginning and the 'red shift' proves that.

  No one has said otherwise; you just apppear to have a rather garbled understanding of the incorrect Creationist propoganda regarding the law on entropy. ALthough the Universe appears to be a closed system, with 'domains' where there are certain astronomical features (i.e. stars), it is not a close system, therefore the law on entropy does not apply locally. To confirm this look up when outside on a clear day during the hours of daylight. You might be able to make out a ruddy great big ball of fusing gas. As long as this is pumping out energy, the Earth is not a closed system. Duh!
• 

  Frogleg

  Hamsterbait, you are correct, the universe is a big joke. I call it the Cosmic Joke. Now, slap your knee and get back to dying.

  Some missteps along the way: entropy is not that energy "tends" to disspate. Dissipate into what? Entropy is a measure of order based upon a reference point. That's it. Low entropy systems are random, higher entropy systems are highly ordered. The famous example is a deck of cards all in suit, all in numerical order, extreme entropy. Of all the possible arrangements of those cards, there is only one arrangement like the one it is in. Throw the deck into the air, regather them, and the odds are extremely emmense that they won't be in order. Although, (and this problem has pissed off more than one particle physicist) the current "mixed" state of the deck has no less entropy than it had when it was "pristine". My point about entropy is that universe tends to low entropy, i.e. everyhting turns to shite. Even black holes eventually die. Therefore, although the stars grow and die, the cosmos is slowly, inexorably, moving to lowest entropy: even the protons of all matter will have fallen apart and no longer exist as protons, because the energy that held those systems together has lessened in concentration within that particular system. Evolution decrees that systems get better over time (I suppose survivability is a facet of "better", I don't know. There are some pukes I know who would make the universe a shite load better if they stopped living, but that may be beside the point.) which is not IMpossible by any means, but it does dictate that something external of that system must be infusing energy into it. The ordered state of the COHN atoms within our DNA turns to shite over time and we end up worm food. The concept that the atoms will become better arranged over time ignores entropy. Guess the jokes on us, huh!
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  Evolution decrees that systems get better over time (I suppose survivability is a facet of "better", I don't know. There are some pukes I know who would make the universe a shite load better if they stopped living, but that may be beside the point.) which is not IMpossible by any means, but it does dictate that something external of that system must be infusing energy into it.

  I could very easily be overly dense here, but I'm just not seeing what "entropy" has to do with evolution/natural selection.

  Evolution isn't a grand scheme overseeing the planet-wide ecosystem. It's the result of things that happen to specific individuals. Imagine these two rabbits. One runs fast, the other runs slow. They live in a predator rich environment. Unsurprisingly, the slower one gets eaten and doesn't get to pass on his slow-running genes. The faster one lives and DOES get to pass on his faster-running genes, and his offspring are also fast. Eventually the entire population runs faster than the same population 100 years ago.

  How does entropy play into that scenario at all?

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this "entropy" talk surrounding evolution is based on the second law of thermodynamics, right? The one that says that energy will not of its own accord move from a less-concentrated space to a more-concentrated space? So if a glass of hot water is poured into a bucket of cold water, the hot water will release its heat into the surrounding colder water. What does this have to do with evolution?

  Dave
• 

  Frogleg

  AlmostAtheist,

  Good point; however, entropy figures into the evolution discussion because it is all part of the same system. Disregarding it is kind of like screaming down I95 at a 100mph and thinking, "I don't need any brakes!" because nothing is currently in your way.

  What most evolutionists tend to do is look at evolution in an extremely, extremely, extremely narrow scope of reality, that is, the past, oh, pick a number, 100 million years? That's not even a popcorn fart in comparison to rest of whatever. To go from aeons of relatively low entropy states of rocks and dirt and water and gases, all pretty much in isolated, singular, form, and then suddenly, by pure randomness, we get this (relatively speaking) extremely high entropic state of matter that is termed "alive", and that not only stays "alive" but actually goes into higher and higher entropic states as time goes by (great song, by the way) sorta, kinda, seems out of place.

  Remeber that line out of KPAX? "Why is a soap bubble round? Because it is the most energy efficient shape." Why don't we have triangular soap bubles? I mean, that would be cool.
• 

  DanTheMan

  To go from aeons of relatively low entropy states of rocks and dirt and water and gases, all pretty much in isolated, singular, form, and then suddenly, by pure randomness, we get this (relatively speaking) extremely high entropic state of matter that is termed "alive", and that not only stays "alive" but actually goes into higher and higher entropic states as time goes by (great song, by the way) sorta, kinda, seems out of place.

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you're stating that for aeons, the Earth was a relatively calm place where there was just a lot of dirt and water and stuff, and then suddenly things started stirring up and becoming alive?

  On the subject of entropy, billions of years ago, our solar system was a rotating cloud of dust that had far more energy than it does now. The dust started concentrating in certain areas, forming the sun and our planets, with the sun being the place where the energy in the dust cloud concentrated the most, forming a nuclear furnace where hydrogen gets converted to helium. As a result, for billions of years into the past, our planet was and continues to be showered with untold amounts of solar energy. But the overall energy contained in our solar system is constantly decreasing, but that in no way precludes some interesting things from happening in the meantime.
• 

  Frogleg

  Dan,

  You are correct, that is what I am saying. I wouldn't necessarily term the earth as quiet or quiessecent at any particular time; however, whatever the first "life" form was, even if it was just a virus, the "life" system was a great deal more ordered (entropic) than the surrounding groupings of matter and energy. Thermodynamics, entropy, or whatever, would dictate that some external force of energy had to have been applied to "order" that matter into whatever it became. That obviously had to have happened, but its happening by pure chance is counter to all currently known and accepted laws of physics and chemistry and electricity and so forth. Does that mean that the current physical laws were the same now as when life began on Earth? Not necessarily; however, what is known about the the way the basic systems of the universe work today, at this moment, right now, the possibility of a life form beginning out of pure chance is so itty-bitty and tiny as to be virtually non-existant.
• 

  DanTheMan

  Thermodynamics, entropy, or whatever, would dictate that some external force of energy had to have been applied to "order" that matter into whatever it became. That obviously had to have happened, but its happening by pure chance is counter to all currently known and accepted laws of physics and chemistry and electricity and so forth.

  
  

  
  Maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm really confused by most of what you're saying.

  Once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that for someone to state that ordered systems occur on the earth as a result of the solar radiation beaming down onto it runs counter to all currently known and accepted laws of physics, etc.?
• 

  Frogleg

  Dan,

  No, I am not assuming any particular source of energy. However, I would note that "beaming down" of energy from the sun (or nuclear bomb, heat lamp, flashlight, etc.) will NOT increase the ordered state of matter, as a matter of fact, in a general sense, it causes (exacerbates) disorder. (Which is why the f*ck I have to spend this weekend resealing my deck!) It may rearrange it, i.e. change it's state from liquid to gas, but it will not increase the entropy of the state. Now, if you want to point out that, say, an ammonia molecule is in a higher state of order than the CNOH atoms it is made of, and that the ammonia molecule was "created" by solar radiation, you would not be incorrect. But the logic of comparison with "life" objects breaks down in the same way as the classical declaring the sun a quarter, based upon the fact that both objects are round.