Dearest Kate,
In order to keep order in our discussion I will highlight my latest responses.
"This is not a debate board but a discussion board and it is good that we can keep it respectful.
A matter of semantics really. A debate IS a discussion isn’t it?
Why do you feel the need to refute someone anyway?
I could ask the same of you. Usually I feel the need to refute someone when I believe they are wrong. You? Why not a calm respectful discussion?"
I have and shall always be calm. If you paid close attention I even made light of the fact that you called me a cult member. I thought I took that rather well.
I have been told by an evolutionist that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics was not a law.
That guy was wrong as any well informed scientist will tell you.
What I posted was from Wikipedia as the description of biogenesis, then I pointed out that sometimes current scientific theory's have been wrong.
The former belief that maggots spontaneously appeared as a result of abiogenesis is just an example I used to show that sometimes current "theories" are later found to have been wrong.
The sudden appearance of maggots on a body with no (at the time) known cause being called abiogenisis and the current experiments in duplicating the primordial soup to see if basic amino acids can be formed by external forces being called abiogenisis is a bit confusing, but fine, I will accept your statement that you simply wanted to point out that theories do get overturned, adjusted and thrown out. In fact that is exactly what I love about the scientific process. Someone came along and invented a better way to see and observe. They discovered that flies dropped very small black dots onto the decaying corpses and voila (my salute to RAF) Maggot EGGS were discovered. The mysticism of the Maggots from nothing theory was dismissed!! That Maggots were though to come from nothing isn’t exactly correct, they thought that life transmuted and what not but you get the general gist. This type of belief is what happens when a belief is adopted WITHOUT evidence.
So negative entropy means that this computer I am using at some point may not need electricity to power itself and may even self evolve into a better machine. Wishful thinking.
Please do not use straw man tactics. No, negative entropy does not mean that-- unless you are using a MAC and in that case it just might. We are talking about LIFE not your computer. I will say though, that in fact, computers do indeed adapt or evolve. Your environment requires a new solution or "software", so you buy the new software and find out you need more RAM. You put new RAM in your machine and it has now "evolved" (with your environmental help) into a bigger badder machine. If your machine can not be upgraded it gets thrown out or DIES as a SPECIES like my old computer.
Closed system or not the 2nd law is functioning on earth as is entropy.
Agreed, but it simply is not a valid objection to evolution. It wasn’t really designed to be. It was brought up by ID proponents to disprove "The Origin of LIFE" theory of abiogenisis. Going
forward I will not clarify your objections to evolution. You must do this yourself.
If you believe in evolution I think you would have that proof right? Do you base your beliefs on fantasy or concrete proof?
I do believe in evolution and indeed there is evidence to support the theory. I base my beliefs on evidence not fantasy. Do you base you belief in god on evidence and concrete proof? If you do where does faith come in? There were links to proof provided at the beginning of this thread. That would be a good place for us to start. Pick a piece of evidence that you disagree with the interpolations of and provide the reasons why. We can have a discussion. Why are most creationists skeptical about evolution but not about the bible or God…never understood that.
I believe in biogenesis, life comes from life. Not in evolution, life comes as an accident from nothing, then evolves into higher more complex life forms.
I believe in biogenisis as well. Life does indeed come from life. That is the basic premise of evolution. You are talking about the ORIGIN of first life. That is another subject altogether. I say that we know almost NOTHING about the origin of first life right now but there are a few interesting hypothesis. Our difference is that you attribute first life to God and I do not. Why are you stuck on the term "higher more complex forms?" Do you really think a dog is any less complex that you or me? What do you measure to determine complexity? It is simply different.
If evolution is dependent on a living organism adapting to its environment into a higher more complex organism then the fossil record needs to be changed.
Why do you think the fossil record is wrong? Some species died out while others were more suited for the changed environment. Those survived and the difference was passed on in the “gene code” to their children and so on and so on. Evolution. Voila
It is full of extinct species, get it, extinct species. Species that did not adapt.
I get it thanks. I say you are sort of correct. Species or MEMBERS of the species that did not have the correct characteristics to survive or procreate went extinct. Their particular gene code “died off” This is just ONE of several extinction factors. Did the Dodo bird die off because it could not adapt? Well yes, it could not adapt to hunters bullets!!!
Today we have humans riddled with diseases and getting sicker and sicker with more fatal mutations occurring not less.
Proof? More fatal mutations? We live longer, healthier lives that our great grandparents. This just shows us that viruses can “evolve” as well. Please keep in mind that evolution is no guarantee of survival. It is life’s way of trying to get by!!!
Evolution if a true scientific law would be evident across the board, all living things would be subject to it.
Yes and they are.
Instead it is common sense that says all life is subject to the 2nd law, entropy and will die.
Why did you use the word instead? Yes, all things die but most pass on their genetic code. I do not see how “things die” denies evolution. In a sense “things dieing” are necessary for evolution to work.
Small adaptations can be seen such as in e coli becoming more antobiotic resistant, but it is still e coli. The adaptation did not cause it to evolve into a higher life form.
Do you believe that the rapidity of ecoli procreation is fast enough for it to evolve into a different life form while you watch?
You are neither ignorant nor pathetic for presenting them
Thank you. Sorry for the large type and all the red. I tried to make the font smaller and for some reason, entropy I'm sure, I could not.
You are welcome. Dont sweat the type I fixed it.Asheron
