Evolution Debate

[bob b]

I don't care about appearing to be right or wrong, as long as you admit that you cannot know whether the universe is a closed system and this in essence nullifies the argument (I thought it was your argument, but I could have been wrong) that SLoT is the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces in the universe. Can we agree on that?

The SLoT argument when properly understood is not restricted to whether a system is closed or not.

If one invokes the "open" factor then one has to consider the nature (and effect) of any physical phenomena (such as the Sun's radiation) which might enter (or leave) the closed system from outside its boundary.

With this consideration the SLoT would apply with equal force to the "open" situation.

 

[fool]

I said:



to which you replied.



Doesn't the Bible teach a different story? Perhaps you should reread what choices you presented to me.

#1 seems to be that "the Bible is not inspired", but wouldn't there be a #1B that "the Bible is inspired?

Likewise your #2 seems to be that "man is seen to have evolved", but wouldn't there be a #2B where "man is seen to not have evolved".

So there are 4 sets of combinations from which to choose.

I choose #1B and #2B. I believe the Bible was inspired and man did not evolve from an apelike ancestor.

Atheists apparently choose #1A and #2A.

Weak Christians, those having more faith in evolutionists than they do in God's inspiration of the Bible, choose one of the two remaining combinations.

Good show! Bob, you've demonstrated that you do have the ability to see thru a false dicotomy and crack it into smaller chunks. Will you stand with me and point out the fallacy of false dicotomy to Bob Enyart in regards to manganese nodules?

 

[fool]

From here;
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=995035&postcount=138

 

[noguru]

The SLoT argument when properly understood is not restricted to whether a system is closed or not.

If one invokes the "open" factor then one has to consider the nature (and effect) of any physical phenomena (such as the Sun's radiation) which might enter (or leave) the closed system from outside its boundary.

With this consideration the SLoT would apply with equal force to the "open" situation.

Yes Bob but in that case we must also consider all the other forces of nature as well. And since we only know that SLoT can lead to energy reaching equilibrium in a closed system, we cannot assume that this would also be the case in an open system.

 

[bob b]

Yes Bob but in that case we must also consider all the other forces of nature as well. And since we only know that SLoT can lead to energy reaching equilibrium in a closed system, we cannot assume that this would also be the case in an open system.

You seem to have misunderstood the argument.

As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this.

 

[bob b]

Good show! Bob, you've demonstrated that you do have the ability to see thru a false dicotomy and crack it into smaller chunks. Will you stand with me and point out the fallacy of false dicotomy to Bob Enyart in regards to manganese nodules?

Certainly, if I agree that you are correct that it is a false dichotomy.

Please amplify your false dichotomy argument.

 

[bob b]

But the original post said that if it were inspired it would not written that way.

Why not?

Your original posting said

And so to say that the writings are divine is to say that the authors developed as humans did, suggesting that such writings are not divinely influenced, and even if they are to be considered so, the human witnesses were not capable of communicating it across.

Assuming your premise to be true you then developed what fool agreed with me was a false dicotomy. Surely you can see that your 2 choice model depends critically on one's acceptance of your main underlying assumption, namely, that God could not have inspired the author of scripture.

And further it also has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the human authors "were not capable of communicating it [inspiration] across."

I do not accept your premises despite the fact that you have. You have even admitted that the first premise was only a "suggestion".

 

[noguru]

You seem to have misunderstood the argument.

As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this.

It is not indifferent. When it crosses this boundary it is not longer isolated. There are other forcces at work. It is no longer SLoT as we know it. The formula to figure out what happens with the interaction between matter and the different forms of energy is so complex that noone can honestly predict what will ultimately happen in the universe. However, I know that because of your background you believe you are the best judge of this.

 

[No Worries]

Why not?

Your original posting said....

....And further it also has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the human authors "were not capable of communicating it [inspiration] across."

I do not accept your premises despite the fact that you have. You have even admitted that the first premise was only a "suggestion".

If you want to ignore the scholars on human development then that is your stance. The fact is those that study these things have come to agree that man's expression changes. If God is universal then in communicating his teachings humans would be writing in an entirely different manner.

As it is weight from not only biblical texts but also those from outside Judaic-Christian realms all show the same progression in man's abilities. If this is the case, which it is, it shows that man was writing for himself and was not writing down what someone else was inspiring or saying.

The weight of evidence is against you as it is in the scientific evolutionary theatre but it is one more thing which postulates against your standing.

 

[bob b]

If you want to ignore the scholars on human development then that is your stance. The fact is those that study these things have come to agree that man's expression changes. If God is universal then in communicating his teachings humans would be writing in an entirely different manner.

The logic of this last sentence escapes me, as does the phrase "If God is universal". Our only knowledge of the Christian God comes from scripture. I know of nowhere in scripture where it states that inspired thoughts from God would be limited by the writing style of the human author. I would think that Truth could be communicated by God using the different writing styles of men and would not be dependent on which ones were employed.

As it is weight from not only biblical texts but also those from outside Judaic-Christian realms all show the same progression in man's abilities.

That sounds like a "fad" theory to me. Some educational institutions still depend on the teaching of the Greek classics, because they are still considered by many to be extremely valuable, as opposed to much of today's writings.

If this is the case, which it is, it shows that man was writing for himself and was not writing down what someone else was inspiring or saying.

Yes, but only if it is the case, which was the point I was questioning and which you have not established is true.

The weight of evidence is against you as it is in the scientific evolutionary theatre but it is one more thing which postulates against your standing.

Evidence has no weight except in the minds of the ones who think it supports their argument. So far the only "evidence" I have seen from you are references to authors who have certain opinions that would be hard to uphold in a court of law.

Are you so opinionated that you actually think you can determine the ability or lack thereof of God to inspire authors to write down the essence of truths He wishes to communicate? What in the world does either writing style or the skill of the author have to do with that? He was being inspired by God for heaven's sake.
"With God all things are possible." Jesus Christ, as quoted in scripture.

 

[noguru]

If this is the case, which it is, it shows that man was writing for himself and was not writing down what someone else was inspiring or saying.

Yes, but only if it is the case, which was the point I was questioning and which you have not established is true.

I believe that the NT and the OT are inspired by God. What they are however, is a collection of inspired writings by many different authors. Each of these writing reflects the biases - historical, cultural, and personal perspective of its authors. This much is evident. If it were that the writings were a word for word dication by God to his religious secretaries, then they would not reflect these historical, cultural and personal biases.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't care about appearing to be right or wrong, as long as you admit that you cannot know whether the universe is a closed system and this in essence nullifies the argument (I thought it was your argument, but I could have been wrong) that SLoT is the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces in the universe. Can we agree on that?

The "SLoT being the ultimate force in the universe" is your bag. I'm sticking with science that has evidence.

 

[noguru]

The "SLoT being the ultimate force in the universe" is your bag. I'm sticking with science that has evidence.

What are you talking about? Your not fooling anyone but yourself. I am sticking with science that has evidence. It has nothing to do with "a bag". It is the conclusion ascertained through science. You're sticking with an explanation that has "the supernatural" to supplement your ignorance regarding science. Get a clue. :wave:

 

[Yorzhik]

What are you talking about? Your not fooling anyone but yourself. I am sticking with science that has evidence. It has nothing to do with "a bag". It is the conclusion ascertained through science. You're sticking with an explanation that has "the supernatural" to supplement your ignorance regarding science. Get a clue. :wave:

First, as evidenced by the earth not being a closed system because of the sun, having the universe as an open system does not help evo. Second, until there is evidence of the universe being an open system, I won't put as much stock in the idea as you do. Third, the amount of evidence that the SLoT will be reversed even if the universe is open is zero.

And by "your bag" I mean that your contention that we are saying that the SLoT is the ultimate law of the universe overriding all other forces is something or your own invention. It isn't born out in either our direct comments or in extrapolation of what we say about the law.

 

[aharvey]

First, as evidenced by the earth not being a closed system because of the sun, having the universe as an open system does not help evo. Second, until there is evidence of the universe being an open system, I won't put as much stock in the idea as you do. Third, the amount of evidence that the SLoT will be reversed even if the universe is open is zero.

Sorry to intrude (more than you know!), especially as you guys are arguing about what y'all said in a previous argument, but it almost sounds to me like one side (see above) has taken the position that SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system? Is this an accurate assessment of this position?

By the way, I'm assuming that "evo" is shorthand for something specifically relevant to biological evolution, not, say, "evolution of the universe," right? Otherwise, never mind!

 

[bob b]

It is not indifferent. When it crosses this boundary it is not longer isolated. There are other forcces at work. It is no longer SLoT as we know it.

What's this "we" stuff? (courtesy of Tonto)

The formula to figure out what happens with the interaction between matter and the different forms of energy is so complex that noone can honestly predict what will ultimately happen in the universe.

On the contrary, people can honestly predict that the universe is "running down". The ultimate "heat death" of the universe is a very common belief among scientists. Certainly these people should be considered honest.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sorry to intrude (more than you know!), especially as you guys are arguing about what y'all said in a previous argument, but it almost sounds to me like one side (see above) has taken the position that SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system? Is this an accurate assessment of this position?

Thanks for overcoming your sorrow brought on by intruding, we're always happy to get your scholarly input.

To answer your questions: no and no. I'm saying (and I assume you are talking about my comments), that it won't matter if either the earth or the universe are open or close systems, evo still won't work.

By the way, I'm assuming that "evo" is shorthand for something specifically relevant to biological evolution, not, say, "evolution of the universe," right? Otherwise, never mind!

Yes. Ultimately biological evolution-at-the-phylum-level.

 

[aharvey]

Thanks for overcoming your sorrow brought on by intruding, we're always happy to get your scholarly input.

To answer your questions: no and no. I'm saying (and I assume you are talking about my comments), that it won't matter if either the earth or the universe are open or close systems, evo still won't work.

I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially. So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

Yes. Ultimately biological evolution-at-the-phylum-level.

Ah, somehow I knew we'd get back to the old "evolution-at-the-phylum level" fallacy... Yorzhik, evolution most emphatically does not happen at the phylum level! Who says it does? Are you thinking that the degree of evolutionary change can be correlated with time but only over short time intervals, because there is a relatively low upper limit to the maximum possible amount of evolutionary change within a lineage? This would allow species to evolve, even to evolve into other species, but would limit how different they could ultimately get. I'm willing to work with you to get a clear idea of what you're after, but you've got to understand the different between "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" and "evolution at higher taxonomic levels."

 

[bob b]

Is there any such thing as a perfectly closed system, with the possible exception of a carefully controlled lab experiment?

If not does this mean that the SLoT is never to be invoked?

Guess it must be a useless concept.

 

[noguru]

Is there any such thing as a perfectly closed system, with the possible exception of a carefully controlled lab experiment?

If not does this mean that the SLoT is never to be invoked?

Guess it must be a useless concept.

Bob you are excluding the middle. Are you saying that there are only two possibilities?
SLoT is either the ultimate force that wins out over all other forces?
Or SLoT has not influence whatsoever?

I think you are missing the big area in the middle.