Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Extinctions are not only caused by humans. Yes, humans have caused their fair share of extinctions. But that is because we often learn a new technology before we learn how to manage it responsibly. That coupled with the fact that greed will often keep us blind to our own lack of manageability. Because we often look inordinately to short term financial accounting for our idea of manageability, rather than taking other aspects into account as well.

I know, noguru, it is a travesty, these extinctions. BTW, did you hear about the gravitational ripples that I mentioned a few days ago. They hit the newspaper today. Maybe 2morrow, it'll be in your newspaper or on your news station. I don't know where you live. I live in Phoenix, AZ. You are a fellow Christian, so I'm proud of you for hanging onto your religion through it all.

God's Blessings For You, noguru,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

When Stein asked about Intelligent Design, it was pretty obvious he was asking about a Creator.

Since, for reasons of 'getting around' the constitution, the ID crowd are very clear that the creator does not necessarily correspond to the christian god, I don't think you are right. A creator, not The Creator God.

Dawkins answer essentially was 'perhaps life evolved elsewhere and they seeded life on earth'. Dawkins would rather believe in aliens than the creator.
Here is the Stein interview you refer to-

You got the wrong end of the stick, again. Darwin was asked if it was possible that life was created on the earth, and he essentially said yes, remotely possible. He thought that it was possible that life had been created and seeded by other evolved lifeforms.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

See?

He was saying that ID's suggestion of a creator could be true if the creator was an evolved life form, that there could have been a naturalistic creator that doesn't require magical thinking. But he is not convinced that the evidence suggests even that remote possibility.

You seem so keen to paint Dawkins into your preconceived corner that you neglect to carefully read the context of the quote.

 

[noguru]

I know, noguru, it is a travesty, these extinctions. BTW, did you hear about the gravitational ripples that I mentioned a few days ago. They hit the newspaper today. Maybe 2morrow, it'll be in your newspaper or on your news station. I don't know where you live. I live in Phoenix, AZ. You are a fellow Christian, so I'm proud of you for hanging onto your religion through it all.

God's Blessings For You, noguru,

Michael

Yes, I started a thread about it a couple days ago.

Primordial gravitational wave discovered...

 

[alwight]

I repeat..... "The Biblical model is rapid change, variation and adaptation"...





It invalidates what you said. Evolutionism is not lead by evidence, but by beliefs.

Creationism is also lead by beliefs.

Both sides examine the exact same evidence.

Your side believes life comes from non life....that dinosaurs evolved into birds... that the universe and the laws which govern it created itself...etc





In the beginning, God created. The complexity in the simplest bacteria is evidence of design.

" scientists decided to try simulate one of the smallest known genomes of any organism (525 gene). The scientists had "a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Interestingly, the article unwittingly suggests an Intelligent Designer may be responsible... "Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total. That'd take a lot of computers to model, eh? If it were possible, that is."




I didn`t say it was true or science... But it certainly is true what I said;
What I said was....
DNA may appear designed, because it is designed.
The universe may appear designed, because it is designed.
The human eye may appear designed, because it is designed

Clearly you have no intention of responding specifically to any of my previous questions. You don't seem to want to say if you think your supposed created life came replete with all the genetic information required for its, imo highly unlikely, super-rapid evolution and diversification in only a few thousand years, or if that information had to evolve, but then I think I can understand why.

 

[Jukia]

I repeat..... "The Biblical model is rapid change, variation and adaptation"...

In 4000 years.

Which one of Noah's family had a cold by the way? Which an STD? Or did those diseases, and most of the others we deal with, pop into existence, thanks to the plans of your god, since the Flood?

 

[noguru]

Clearly you have no intention of responding specifically to any of my previous questions. You don't seem to want to say if you think your supposed created life came replete with all the genetic information required for its, imo highly unlikely, super-rapid evolution and diversification in only a few thousand years, or if that information had to evolve, but then I think I can understand why.

YECs always bail out when confronted with tough questions about their model. They prefer to keep their focus on the mysteries in science. And they will fabricate the foundations of those mysteries to suit their need.

 

[alwight]

YECs always bail out when confronted with tough questions about their model. They prefer to keep their focus on the mysteries in science. And they will fabricate the foundations of those mysteries to suit their need.

No they won't go there Nog because the detail is where the devil is. :devil:

 

[ac111971]

Creation vs. Evolution

Where is the true Bible?
Who wrote the true Bible?
When it was written?
Why there are so many versions?
What is the actual language of true Bible?
Who wrote that Jesus was crucified?
Was the Bible written after the death of Jesus?
I want to visit his grave if he was killed by human being.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Entropy and cells

In thermodynamics, entropy (usual symbol S) is a measure of the number of specific ways in which a thermodynamic system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of disorder, or a measure of progressing towards thermodynamic equilibrium. The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, which is the state of maximum entropy.

In information theory, entropy is a measure of the uncertainty in a random variable.

At a multidisciplinary level, however, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamic entropy, as explained by statistical mechanics, should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being proportional to the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics, with the constant of proportionality being just the Boltzmann constant. For example, adding heat to a system increases its thermodynamic entropy because it increases the number of possible microscopic states for the system, thus making any complete state description longer.

Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes (permitted by conservation laws) occur spontaneously while their time reversals (also permitted by conservation laws) do not; systems tend to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. For isolated systems, entropy never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it implies the arrow of entropy has the same direction as the arrow of time. Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, because some energy is expended as waste heat, limiting the amount of work a system can do. --Wiki​

Are cells subject to entropy?

--Dave

 

[Stuu]

You might like to read Answers in Genesis on why creationists shouldn't use arguments based in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Stuart

 

[DFT_Dave]

You might like to read Answers in Genesis on why creationists shouldn't use arguments based in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Stuart

Or, maybe we should just examine this for ourselves.

According to the chemist John Avery, from his recent 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution, we find a presentation in which the phenomenon of life, including its origin and evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its basis in the background of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. The (apparent) paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources." The process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived directly from the expression of the second law equation for connected non-equilibrium open systems.

DNA and other macromolecules determine an organism's life cycle: birth, growth, maturity, decline, and death. Nutrition is necessary but not sufficient to account for growth in size as genetics is the governing factor. At some point, organisms normally decline and die even while remaining in environments that contain sufficient nutrients to sustain life. The controlling factor must be internal and not nutrients or sunlight acting as causal exogenous variables. Organisms inherit the ability to create unique and complex biological structures; it is unlikely for those capabilities to be reinvented or be taught each generation. Therefore DNA must be operative as the prime cause in this characteristic as well. Applying Boltzmann's perspective of the second law, the change of state from a more probable, less ordered and high entropy arrangement to one of less probability, more order, and lower entropy seen in biological ordering calls for a function like that known of DNA. DNA's apparent information processing function provides a resolution of the paradox posed by life and the entropy requirement of the second law.​

Clearly the origin and evolution of cells presents a "paradox", the problem of a theory that demands increased information and a process of cell activity that does not provide it.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

Clearly the origin and evolution of cells presents a "paradox", the problem of a theory that demands increased information and a process of cell activity that does not provide it.

Partial quoting. Right after your (two) quoted passages, there is this resolution of the apparent paradox. (I reality, there are no paradoxes, only apparent ones.)

In 1982, American biochemist Albert Lehninger argued that the "order" produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the "disorder" they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. "Living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."​

So your Wikipedia presented a situation that naively looked like a paradox and then gave the solution.

Is there any reason why you left out the context of the passages which made it look like there was no resolution? Sneaky rhetorical trick, but not convincing.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Cells ARE NOT closed systems.

 

[6days]

Clearly you have no intention of responding specifically to any of my previous questions. You don't seem to want to say if you think your supposed created life came replete with all the genetic information required for its, imo highly unlikely, super-rapid evolution and diversification in only a few thousand years, or if that information had to evolve, but then I think I can understand why.

You are dishonest and claimed my position was that God "pre created as is".
How about you show where I said this?

In the beginning God created

 

[Silent Hunter]

You are dishonest and claimed my position was that God "pre created as is".

What does "pre created as is" mean?

 

[6days]

What does "pre created as is" mean?

I dunno cuz I never said it. The phrase doesn't make sense.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I dunno cuz I never said it. The phrase doesn't make sense.

I don't think he said you said he said you said that either :dizzy:.

Most creationists believe their deity created life "as is" without any changes. What do you believe?

 

[Tyrathca]

Are cells subject to entropy?

--Dave

I shall answer your question with another question:

Are fridges subject to entropy?

If you can answer that I think you should be able to answer your own question.

 

[Stripe]

Cells ARE NOT closed systems.

Then you will be able to show us the mechanism that converts sunlight into beneficial changes to a genome. :up:

Most creationists believe their deity created life "as is" without any changes.

All creationists believe God created two people, a bunch of animals, plants and all the other living things. He did not create "life" as He is alive and did not create Himself.

Your analysis makes zero sense.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Then you will be able to show us the mechanism that converts sunlight into beneficial changes to a genome.

Yet ANOTHER of Stripe's red herrings.

All creationists believe God created two people, a bunch of animals, plants and all the other living things. He did not create "life" as He is alive and did not create Himself.

. . . or so the story told by bronze age sheep/goat herders goes . . . with embellishment.

Your analysis makes zero sense.

I made no attempt to analyze anything.

:mock: Stripe