Can science support creationism?

There is, you say, way too much complexity. How much complexity is there? What is the limit to the amount of change which can be generated in a 1,000 years by know mutational mechanisms?Please, show the calculations which show that the change in the amount of complexity over say the last 100,000,000 years is greater than this limit of natural mechanisms.If you can't do that or something similar you are making unfounded assertions based on your extremely limited understanding of the facts of the situation. If there ever was a time for Rrhain's *blink* this is it. Are you hinting that after all your time here you would actually raise the 2nd law of theromodynamics as any kind of impediment??If so, say so and I'll start yet anouther thread for you to make your claims and for others to show that this too is an area that you don't understand. And yet another clanger ( *blink*, *blink*). Have you read nothing here Buz? Evolution is NOT a random process. Your drum analogy is meaningless. This is astonishing!This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-02-2004 09:45 PM

The topic here is "Can science support creationism?"All we need to know about the 2nd law for here is that it can't support creationism unless you or someone shows how it does.You brought it up yet don't know what it is. It's your job to use it but you'll have to find someone who knows what it is. Sorry, Buz, you said "too much" that is something that has to be quantified. In other words you have to do the math to "support creationism". If you can't you'll have to drop this line of reasoning too.In fact, the ability of evolutionary processes to produce things which we might all agree are "complex" (even if we don't have a clear definition yet) has been shown in a number of ways.The human brain is not fundamentally different from a cat's brain, which is similar in construction and basic building blocks to a mouses brain. The brain of a lizard is made of in the same basic way as the mouse's. A lizard and a fish share some similarities in nerve structures. What is needed to get from one to the other are lots and lots of changes all of which can be shown to fit within what is possible through evolutionary changes.You simply don't choose to believe that. If you wish to use science to "support" what you say you'll have to do more than hypothesize" that it can't happen. All you've done is say that it can't.You haven't supported a thing you've said.

Well, Buz, there is this unfortunate thing about a number of counter-intuitive ideas -- they work!Your computer is, I preseume, still working? That's QM in there. The dilation of time and increase in mass with speed is, to me anyway, counter-intuitive but they are right anyway.That's the difference Buz, you go on your personal unsupported intuition. This has been demonstrated to be a poor way to understand the natural world (not saying anything about whatever other world you want to believe in). The demonstration has been done over and over.In other words these ideas, counter-intuitive or not, "rule the day" because they are supported by facts in the real world. That is the final test: Does it work?Centuries ago (and even today) people believed that a thrown object went straight in the direction it was thrown then just dropped to the ground. That was the "common sense" view. It is, in case you were wondering, totally wrong.The idea that evolutionary processes can produce a bewildering variety of forms seems to be counter-intuitive to you. They can: your intuition is wrong.In any case, you have no science here. You have done nothing to use science to support creationism. You are instead suggesting that you need to use "common-sense" and "intuition" even if they have been demonstrated over and over to be, if used alone, a dangerous path to a real understanding of the world around us.Now, if you insist on using non-science I take it that you are effectively saying that science can, in fact, not used to support creationism and for that reason you wish to suggest other ways and stay away from science.Is that the case?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-03-2004 10:13 PM

That is your orginal reference to the 2ltd. You give no clue why you think that the 2nd law has any relevance to the issue at hand. You show no logic tieing the 2nd law to your conjecture. Untill you do there is nothing to refute. All you have is "in which 2ltd is suppose to be operating" with absolutely nothing else. It is not supporting your point. It isn't even joined to it.I'm not tiptoeing around it. I'm waiting for you to show how it is relevant. The topic here, Buz, is the support of creationism by science. If you wish to play the science game you have to follow the rules. In this case a quantitive statement needs to be backed up with clear defintions of what you are talking about (e.g., complexity) and then show how the numbers work out.If you don't want to use science then don't but it simply means that you can't show that science does support creationism. The point is that there are less complex things than the human brain. Where is the lower limit to what can arise without devine intervention (once life is in place, since we are talking about evolution).Are you saying you can use science to show that a mouse level of complexity can NOT evolve to a cat level of complexity? If you are please do so. In which case you will have shown that the evolutionary process we understand doesn't work. How then do you develop positive evidence for the tenants of creationism? Of course, not, you haven't made a point yet. You said that the 2nd law operates in our universe. So what? There is no arguement to refute yet.If you think you have a point by saying the 2nd law operates my refutation has already been given. That is; It doesn't matter, it is irrelevant. Done with, next point.If you want more refutation you'll have to supply more argument.If you say a certain amount of complexity can not arise through evolutionary processes in a given amount of time and say no more than that then my refutation is "Can so! ". Done with, next point.If you want more refutation you'll have to supply more arguement.What is the smallest amount of complexity that can arise? How much complexity can evolve per unit time?Once you have given some details of your argument then we are required to give a more detailed refutation. As it is there are no details whatsoever.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-03-2004 10:38 PM

Others seem to have already answered you.Since you know what it is and I know what it is why do we have to do that anyway? Why aren't you just explaining how the 2nd law is any kind of support for your view? As noted the only connection that exists for now is that you tossed it in a phrase in the middle of a post. You did nothing to tie it to you view point.Now that we have the definition in place (and it was in the link you were given) you can show why you brought it up.After you have used it in your apparent attack on evolutionary theory then you could, perhaps, show how it supports creationism -- the topic of this thread.

I know it is operative in the universe.You have been given a definition adn description of the 2nd law which I consider to be reasonable and accurate. Do you want me to copy it?Why would you want me specifically to answer since it should be clear that I agree with what has been posted.I will however give you my view off the top of my head.
The second law states that in a closed system entropy must increase (that is saying the same thing as saying that available free energy to do work must decrease).
In some more detail is talks about the entropy within a closed system and allows for local decrease in entropy as long as the total entropy increases.It however, doesn't put restrictions on a thermodynamically open systems.Now how the heck did that help? Since we both had that information about a day ago.Now you have my answer, please show how it is relevant.I think you'll have to re-ask any question that regards the human brain. I've lost track of what it was. Two points:
The 2nd law being operative has no affect on the likelyhood of anything producing complex things. It is always operative but we have had ample free energy for billions of years so it puts no restrictions on anything.Both an intelligence and evolutionary processes (NOT just NS) can produce complex things. They are both likely to do so. Since they both have been seen to do so the probability of them producing complexity can be assigned a value of 1.What determines the probability of one or the other producing complexity under specific circumstances depends on the circumstances. Under a wide range of scenarios it appears the probability is always pretty high.

It lends no credence to your hypothesis at all.As long as there is free energy the 2nd law doesn't have any affect on any of this. There isn't a "general tendency": entropy will not decrease in total. But lots of things can go counter to this in an open system or in part of a closed one. So for what should be the last time; the 2nd law is not applicable. It offers no support for you hypothosis.You introduced the 2nd law because you've heard it from lots of creationist sites and speakers. You don't actually understand what it is saying and not saying. They are wrong. They have had lots of opportunities to know that they are wrong. If they continue to bring it up they are dishonest. No, not steam engines. Chemical meat engines that can be formed though the evolutionary process without any intelligent intervention.
The only reason steam engines aren't formed is that they don't reproduce themselves in an imperfect fashion.I would have thought that you would have learned that in your time here. Any analogy with anything which does not reproduce is a false and useless analogy. Therefore your introducing steam engines is as useless as your introduction of the 2nd law.

This statement is incomplete. In that way it is wrong.The correct form is:In a closed system entropy will not decrease. It is "general" is is firm. It doesn't apply if the system is not closed.Since we are not talking about a closed system your idea that this has any meaning for the discussion at all is wrong.You tossed it in as if it meant a damm thing to the discussion. It has no relevance at all. None. Your statement of the applicability of the 2nd law is false. That is where you went wrong right at the start.Read over the links you were given discussing it. The 2nd law, in an open system, diminishes nothing. Your understanding is wrong therefore your conclusions are wrong.Now are we discussing evolution or the origin of life? If evolution which you imply by the 'long process' part of your statement then the 2nd law isn't any issue at all.If the chemical origin of life then the energetics of the chemical systems involved have to be considered. Such things reduce the number of reasonable pathways to a living chemical. That is why the catalytic action of RNA is interesting. Then you will have to show just what things that we have learned are "unrealistic". You haven't done that yet. Unfortunately you haven't yet learned enough to be able to do so.

If you are now refering to the universe as a whole as the system under examination there is a further complication that you need to understand.In a closed system the total entropy can not decrease.Therefore in a closed universe there can still be local decreases in entropy if there is a corresponding, greater increase in entropy somewhere else. Thus the solar system as a whole could be taken to approximate a closed system. However, that still allows for life on Earth to reverese the increase in entropy because that local decrease is handled by the greater increase in the sun.Buz, the 2nd law argument has been used by creation sources for decades. They have had time to learn all this. To the extent that they continue to even mention it they are being dishonest. Don't be fooled.

If you are now refering to the universe as a whole as the system under examination there is a further complication that you need to understand.In a closed system the total entropy can not decrease.Therefore in a closed universe there can still be local decreases in entropy if there is a corresponding, greater increase in entropy somewhere else. Thus the solar system as a whole could be taken to approximate a closed system. However, that still allows for life on Earth to reverese the increase in entropy because that local decrease is handled by the greater increase in the sun.Buz, the 2nd law argument has been used by creation sources for decades. They have had time to learn all this. To the extent that they continue to even mention it they are being dishonest. Don't be fooled.

Uh, Buz, the "light and heat" coming in is exactly what makes the earth an open system. It is a significant quantity of energy in total. Almost all life on the planet depends in the fact that earth is open. In fact, it was a pretty big surprise to find some life that doesn't depend on that openness( thermal vents).Remember we are talking about thermodynamics here. It is precisely the energy flow into the earth that we are talking about. If Earth was a closed system then it may well be that only the extremophiles at the ocean bottom would be here. Certainly all the life we know would not be. If earth was closed suddenly then almost all life would be dead in months. In years it is likely we all would be.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-06-2004 05:50 PM

On average, over time, this must be true. Or we'd get awfully hot or cold.However, that also doesn't matter. What is happening is that energy is flowing through the system. That is free energy available for work. A small part of that is used by life on the planet.You car's engine is similar. A lot of energy flows in, it all flows out. The engine, once up to temp, mantains a steady state. But it is the flow through that allows for work to be done. Work is a reversal of entropy increase.Buz, didn't you say, when we started and asked me for my definition that you knew this? It becomes apparent that you didn't. In fact, you don't even have the simplest high school level understanding of the physics involved.That is perfectly ok but it is disengenous of you to suggest otherwise when you started. It is preferrable to admit to what you don't know and ask questions. It is also preferrable to not throw little things in to support your ideas when you have no idea if they do support your ideas or not.I hope we have put this to bed now.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-06-2004 05:59 PM

Since there is no need to introduce a "Creator" to overcome any thermodynamic issues for the origin or creation of life on Earth we have no need of that hypothosis at this point.The thread topic, Buz is using science to support creationism. You have been attempting to misuse science to attack evolutionary theory. That has nothing to do with supporting creationism.Could you now do a couple of things:
Admit that you shouldn't have brought the second law up at all.
Give us some science in support of creationism.Thanks.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-06-2004 08:09 PM

Buz, didn't we have a whole thread on your behavior in discussions?The 2nd law issue doesn't "bother me" all that much. However, if you again just duck out when you have been shown to be in error without being polite about it that would "bother me".Why do you have such a hard time admitting to a reasonably small error? The inability to recognize error on your part will prevent you from learning.

Ha! Do you mean today? The only reason why I may not need to admit to an error all that often is I'm rather cautious about saying things I don't have a bit of assurance about. That is I make fewer off the cuff assertions so I'm wrong a bit less often. However, I still manage to make statements that I'm sure about and find I had mis-remembered something. Doesn't bother me too much actually and I certainly don't get upset when someone points out my error. It is usually a matter of "thanks for that". It wasn't clear to me that you admitted to any errors at all. Where was that? I may have missed it in all the posts. In this case, I don't see that your beliefs have anything to do with it. Why did you bring them up?This is a topic about science supporting creationism. You used a scientific concept in bring up the 2nd law (among other things).It may appear that I am moderating but we can all point out to others when they could improve. Why so sensitive? If you want me to put up a separate post as AdminNosy I will but I don't see why it has to be hammered down so hard as that. It's just a minor note. As well, I'm not saying it as a moderator nor suggesting that you have to listen to what I'm saying. About what? Where you were in error? I didn't see you agree that you should not have brought up the 2nd law. Then dragging it out compounded that error.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 06:52 PM