Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science support creationism?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 95 (155870)
11-04-2004 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 11:09 AM


Answered
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 11:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 95 (156076)
11-04-2004 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by NosyNed
11-03-2004 10:35 PM


Re: Support??
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.
My strategy is to show it's relevance by your answer. What's wrong with that?
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.
But I am using science by definition. Science by definition is "systemized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or priciples of what is being studied."
I am saying that what is observed and studied in such things as the human brain, for example, appears to be too complex for NS alone without an intelligent being. 2ltd factors in my hypothesis, in that by and large it goes contrary to what is being studied and observed in the brain. So the definition of 2ltd and whether it is operative in the universe is relevant to my statement.
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).
That is not my point. I simply used the human brain as an example of complexity. It should be understood as a given that there are less complex things than the human brain. Duh! It appears to me that you are obfuscating my question rather than to forthrightly answering it.
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.
First things first. If you refuse to answer my question, why should I be expected to answer yours?
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.
Where did I say that? I believe I asked you that. Anyhow, I guess I can conclude that you do believe it is operative in the universe, though I haven't yet wrangled out your answer as to what it is.
If you want more refutation you'll have to supply more argument.
Ok, assuming I am correct in assuming you do believe it is operative, if it is operative, scientifically speaking would it be more likely or less likely for an intelligent being to have the ability to produce complex things than for NS to produce complex things, assuming that both had the same elements to begin with with which to work?
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-04-2004 09:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2004 10:35 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2004 9:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-05-2004 12:16 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 95 (156078)
11-04-2004 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 9:25 PM


2nd law
Where did I say that? I believe I asked you that. Anyhow, I guess I can conclude that you do believe it is operative in the universe, though I haven't yet wrangled out your answer as to what it is.
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.
Ok, assuming I am correct in assuming you do believe it is operative, if it is operative, scientifically speaking would it be more likely or less likely for an intelligent being to have the ability to produce complex things than for NS to produce complex things, assuming that both had the same elements to begin with with which to work?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 9:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 95 (156080)
11-04-2004 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
11-04-2004 11:23 AM


Re: Support??
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out
Assuming you consider that scientific law to be operative in the universe, would that tendency, (I say tendency), be more likely to flow towards order or to disorder in the universe?
And it is using and channeling that tendency that allows us to utilise energy to do work - which goes back to the original usage in theoretically modelling steam engines.
allows us to utilize. Yes, you're making my point here in this phrase. That's what I'm trying to say......by intelligent design. Without us, beings of intelligence, alas, no steam engines.
Now are you going to tell me whether you believe that each individual human brain is miraculously created or not ?
No, of course not. All I meant by that statement was that whatever/whoever produced it, put within it the ability to effect the procreation, so to speak, of billions of the same. I'm sure we would both agree that that in itself would take some complex doing.
And if you accept that individual human brains can be formed by natural processes on what basis can you claim that any violation of the 2LoT is involved ?
I'm simply arguing that if the complexity of the human brain were produced by NS that goes counter to the general tendency of 2ltd/2LoT, i.e. decreases entropy, thereby lending some scientific credence to my hypothesis. Nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2004 11:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2004 11:17 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2004 2:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 95 (156082)
11-04-2004 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mikehager
11-04-2004 12:20 PM


Re: Support??
The second law of thermodynamics is in no way a bar to naturalistic development of the universe or life. A general statement of it is that universal entropy increases over time. There is nothing in the second law that denies the existence of pockets of localized decreasing entropy, which can naturally occur as a result of a greater net loss of entropy elsewhere.
I didn't argue that it was a 'bar.' I simply said that I believed such things as the complexity which is observed in the human brain appears to be far too much to be expected from NS and that a more likely hypothesis would be that it was designed and created by a super-intelligent supernatural being existing in the universe. I am simply citing the scientific law/tendency of 2ltd towards increase in entropy as a tendency that would further advance my hypothesis than NS by definition.
The words "disorder" and "order" when discussing the second law are loose approximations, as is the phrase "Disorder increases" (for that matter, any non-mathematical statement of the second law, including mine, is a loose approximation). Using these terms and a minimal understanding of the second law as a great philosophical or poetic concept that applies to all things at all times and in all contexts simply isn't correct.
I didn't say there was never decrease in entropy now, did I? On the other hand, how much order and decrease of entropy, moving contrary to the tendency of the scientific law, can one observe on one itty bitty planet and still say 2ltd is still operative??
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-04-2004 10:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mikehager, posted 11-04-2004 12:20 PM mikehager has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 6:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 36 of 95 (156086)
11-04-2004 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 10:12 PM


2nd law again ???
I'm simply arguing that if the complexity of the human brain were produced by NS that goes counter to the general tendency of 2ltd/2LoT, i.e. decreases entropy, thereby lending some scientific credence to my hypothesis. Nothing more.
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.
That's what I'm trying to say......by intelligent design. Without us, beings of intelligence, alas, no steam engines.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 10:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:53 PM NosyNed has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 37 of 95 (156088)
11-05-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 9:25 PM


too complex?
I am saying that what is observed and studied in such things as the human brain, for example, appears to be too complex for NS alone without an intelligent being.
Buz, from your viewpoint, what is the most complex thing that NS alone can produce?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 9:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:02 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 95 (156098)
11-05-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
11-04-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Support??
quote:
Assuming you consider that scientific law to be operative in the universe, would that tendency, (I say tendency), be more likely to flow
towards order or to disorder in the universe?
That depends on how you define "order". Ultimately the tendency is towards a homogenous state - as far as energy distribution is concerned. Is that ordered ? It certainly doesn't sound disordered to me, by the common meaning of the term.
quote:
allows us to utilize. Yes, you're making my point here in this phrase. That's what I'm trying to say......by intelligent design. Without us, beings of intelligence, alas, no steam engines.
Then you're making a BIG mistake. The 2nd law says nothing about intelligence. You can't infer intelligent intervention just from the 2nd law. Because the 2nd law is not about intelligence - it is about the limits of what can and cannot be done - with or without intelligence.
quote:
No, of course not. All I meant by that statement was that whatever/whoever produced it, put within it the ability to effect the procreation, so to speak, of billions of the same. I'm sure we would both agree that that in itself would take some complex doing.
I would say that you underestimate the power of iteration. Both from the point of view of the developmental processes that directly produce a human brain and from the perspective of billions of years of evolution. Even a mere 1,000 years is more than ten times an average human lifetime - even for those who die of old age. Just as with QM and Relativity we are dealing with a scale completely beyond the normal human scale where our intuitions can be (more or less)trusted.
quote:
No, of course not. All I meant by that statement was that whatever/whoever produced it, put within it the ability to effect the procreation, so to speak, of billions of the same. I'm sure we would both agree that that in itself would take some complex doing.
But as I've pointed out individual brains are the product of the developmental processes, which you have agreed do NOT contradict the 2LoT. Nor have you produced any argument that even that is counter to the general tendency of energy to spread out. So really you've not demonstrated any "scientific credence" for your assertion. Just the opposite - you've shown that you don't even have a real basis for yor intuitive ideas. You haven't really considered what aspects should be directly attributed to NS, let alone the thermodynamic aspects.
To start considering NS, bear in mind that NS is a selective process which channels the variations produced by mutation to allow incremental improvements in "fitness" (i.e. "ability to survive in the current environment"). How does that relate to thermodynamics ? Well if intuition is permitted I'd say that there is no significant connection at all. Want to show otherwise ?
This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-05-2004 02:19 AM
This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-05-2004 05:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2004 10:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 95 (156395)
11-05-2004 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
11-05-2004 12:16 AM


Re: too complex?
Buz, from your viewpoint, what is the most complex thing that NS alone can produce?
I'm glad you asked, Pink. Natural Selection, imo, cannot go beyond the management and survival of living things. Genetically, as I understand it, it is unable to produce new information. It can only eliminate or select existing information for the good of the organism. For example, bright grouse or certain bright fish are easily detected by predators. In areas where they are among numerous predators, the brightest ones would tend to be eliminated and the darker of them would tend to survive and reproduce darker offspring.
I guess some would label this as micro-evolution, but I'm not sure that's a correct usage of the word, evolution.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-05-2004 08:03 PM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-05-2004 12:16 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 8:25 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 79 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-08-2004 12:53 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 95 (156409)
11-05-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:02 PM


I'm glad you asked, Pink.
You guys have fallen into Buz's trap where he gets to assail Natural Selection as if it were the only force involved in evolution.
He's right, of course. By itself, natural selection can only reduce the variability of a population to the most advantageous existing traits.
On the other hand, by itself, random mutation can only expand variation in a population randomly, with no regard as to the fitness of traits.
But to say that proves anything is stupid. Obviously, natural selection and random mutation work together to create new, advantagous traits in populations. What Buz is doing is like trying to "prove" that cars can't actually take you anywhere, because a car with no gas doesn't go anywhere, and gas with no car just runs through your fingers.
Duh. Natural selection without random mutation is like a car with no gas. Put them together, and like the car, there's almost no limit to where they can take you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:02 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 10:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 95 (156421)
11-05-2004 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NosyNed
11-04-2004 11:17 PM


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.
True or false? According to 2ltd, there IS a general tendency for entropy to increase.
True or False? According to 2ltd, the general tendency of entropy is NOT to decrease.
True or false? My hypothesis DID NOT state or imply that nothing can go counter to the tendency of entropy to increase.
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.
So what, specifically, that I have posted can you catagorically denounce as a false statement? Please copy and paste, proving it to be false.
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.
.......And imo, 2ltd diminishes, I say, diminishes the likelihood that NS, beginning with inorganic elements, could via a looooong process, produce US intelligent beings, capable of producing steam engines. That was the intended implication of my statement which you have misconstrued.
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.
.....And, my friend, alas, I'd have thought you and your other brilliant friends here in town would have enough good ole common sense left, after school let out, to realize how unworkable and unrealistic some of the stuff you all learned in school really is.
-

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2004 11:17 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by paisano, posted 11-05-2004 9:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 9:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 11-05-2004 9:30 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 42 of 95 (156425)
11-05-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:53 PM


Buz, actually the 2LOT really doesn't have anything to do with the likelihood or unlikelihood of order in a given system. The 2LOT states that in a closed system not in thermodynamic equilibrium, the entropy of the system tends to increase until the system reaches a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. But even that's imprecise; to really understand the 2LOT , and what it does and doesn't imply, you need to use the language of mathematics. Prose really is at best an approximation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 95 (156426)
11-05-2004 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:53 PM


True or false? According to 2ltd, there IS a general tendency for entropy to increase.
Entropy is not the opposite of complexity, Buz.
As it turns out, ordered states aren't very complex. In fact, the thing that most characterizes a very ordered state is its simplicity.
So too is complexity generally typified by disorder. A fully constructed house is more complex but less ordered than lumber sitting on a lot in neat, organized piles. In regards to the brain, the state of the most order would be all the neurons on one side, and all the neuroglia on the other. That would be the least complexity, in all likelyhood.
Do you get it, yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 95 (156434)
11-05-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
11-05-2004 8:53 PM


Wrong Buz
True or false? According to 2ltd, there IS a general tendency for entropy to increase.
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.
So what, specifically, that I have posted can you catagorically denounce as a false statement? Please copy and paste, proving it to be false.
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.
......And imo, 2ltd diminishes, I say, diminishes the likelihood that NS, beginning with inorganic elements, could via a looooong process, produce US intelligent beings, capable of producing steam engines. That was the intended implication of my statement which you have misconstrued.
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.
....And, my friend, alas, I'd have thought you and your other brilliant friends here in town would have enough good ole common sense left, after school let out, to realize how unworkable and unrealistic some of the stuff you all learned in school really is.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2004 8:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2004 4:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 95 (156452)
11-05-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
11-05-2004 8:25 PM


You guys have fallen into Buz's trap where he gets to assail Natural Selection as if it were the only force involved in evolution.
He's right, of course. By itself, natural selection can only reduce the variability of a population to the most advantageous existing traits.
On the other hand, by itself, random mutation can only expand variation in a population randomly, with no regard as to the fitness of traits.
But to say that proves anything is stupid. Obviously, natural selection and random mutation work together to create new, advantagous traits in populations. What Buz is doing is like trying to "prove" that cars can't actually take you anywhere, because a car with no gas doesn't go anywhere, and gas with no car just runs through your fingers.
Duh. Natural selection without random mutation is like a car with no gas. Put them together, and like the car, there's almost no limit to where they can take you.
The problem with your car/gas analogy is that the car and gas work together consistenly to make the owner's car car purr merrily down the road where he wishes to go. On rare occasions something breaks and needs fixed. On the other hand the tendency of NS is to work against random mutation, producing a weaker or often even dead product when something different is produced by the process.
Evolutionist Herbert Nilson put it this way:
"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."
(Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 8:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 10:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024