A proof against ID and Creationism

No appology necessary at all. You position is quite understandable. I am a bit opinionated and am becomming more forceful and agressive lately. (Not all bad, but certainly not all good.)I wish to think about and respond to your question, but am wore out from a long day and the emotions I now have on the religious topic. I need to calm down. Thanks for your thoughts.BTW: To all, I submitted a feedback asking why my signature does not show up. Having received no reply, will someone help me here?

quote:

---

Only by pointing out that there is no logic or reason to the question.

---

So you don't like the question, but you don't have an answer and you really cannot say why.
That, and I hate to use the cliche but it fits so well, is the wrong answer.
If you cannot do better than that, you really should not have posted.

CS,
Rather than attempt to quible over my interpretations and deductions, I will appologize for miss-understanding you and will accept your position as you have stated it. Hopefuly, I will keep that in mind as we continue various discussions.Thanks for your patience.

---

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

Nuggin gave you an excelent reply, but it can use a bit more explanation.

quote:

---

how do you justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of matter have been scientifically proven?

​

quote:

---

These laws deal with closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Sunlight beams down on earth 24/7/365. That energy into the system. There can be no entropy in a system which experiences constant input of energy. Likewise, conservation of matter.

---

---

Many of those against ToE make this claim about entropy, and almost all neglect the concept of a closed system as noted by Nuggin. The suns add energy to the surface of the earth and the ocean, which can be considered part of the surface. Elements and compounds enter the earth's surface through volcanic action. If we consider the total environment of the sun and all of the earth, the entropy is increasing. The quality of the energy of the sun is going down faster than it is going up on the surface of the earth. The same can be said about the interior of the earth. However, the quality of energy at the surface of the earth is constantly changing both up and down. Very well based arguments have been made that the second law demands that entropy decrease on the surface of the earth. It demands that the complexity will have a tendancy to increase.Do a google search on laws of thermodynamics and evolution and entropy. In their pure and concise forms, the laws of thermodynamics can be quite difficult to understand. With some assistance and plain language explanations most of us can understand them with ease. If one site is too complex, find another, there are many.

---

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

Lets make an informal comparison between the science of a thousand years ago to the science of today. Things that we take for granted would be truely incomprehensible to people of that time. An adult would be hopelessly incapable of understanding what we know of biology know.Now consider, what might we learn in the next hundred or thousand years about complex reactions among chemicals and organic compounds? What might we discover in the area of the most simple entity that might be catagorized a something that is alive?As I said elsewhere, the ocean contains many billions of gallons of water, elements, compounds, and has energy entering and leaving constantly. A million years is an incredibly long time and there were many millions of years for things to happen.Here is one of many web sites that discuss this:
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis CalculationsThat said, I still hold that the division between the most complext detailed organic molecules and collections thereof, and the simplest life that I can imagine, is, to understate the case, incredibly large. I can conceive that in the future we may be able to actually posit a valid theory as to how this could come about, but not now. The simplest of life is just awesome.But back to the theme of this thread: The fact that the transition of noon life to life is more complex than we understand does not imply that there is a diety involved.Imagine how someone from a thousand years ago would see the world today.

---

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

You are right, I overstated the case a bit. If no one explained the gadgets of today, they would be quite difficult to understand. Right now, we have no one to explain how abiogenesis might have occured.

Ringo,
Every time I see your avator I get a chuckle. Inquisitive, but more than just a bit skeptical. I like it.

---

Time is the medium we use to express our priorities.
bkelly

While there is a huge number of people that believe god always existsted, no one, anywhere, has shown verifiable evidence for his existance. Suportable and verifiable evidence for evolution is found in abundance. I find it amazing, incredible, and (throw in your favorite pelthora of adjetives). But not at all preposterious. Atoms, etc are indeed here and do indeed behave in ways we have yet to understand. First, an atom is not the right unit for this discussion. One atom of uranium has about 238 times more mass than one of hydrogen. Your desired unit of measure is probably grams or fractions thereof.Second, there is no need to estimate. Remember E=mc(squared) (I don't know how to show superscript) This tells you how much energy is in one unit of mass. Start with the speed of light, about 300 X 10 to the sixth and square it. You get 90 X 10 to the fifteenth meters squared per second squared. Then multiply that by mass.The common term for mass in grams, but that is not the form to use in equations. I just did some searches and get all kinds of definitions but cannot find the one I need. Will some one here post that form?When we get that, multiply it by the above number and when all the factors above and below the line are resolved, the remainder will be an expression of energy. There will be something like joules or ergs. If you like, they can be converted to the american units such as foot pounds.As I recall, yeild calculations of some nuclear weapons concluded that a few grams of material were converted into energy. There are a lot of atoms in one gram.Astronomists have analyzed some gamma ray yielding explosions in space and have estimated that some of them translate a mass amount equivalent to our sun into energy in one event. It is said that if one of those went off in our half of the milky way, all life on earth would be killed.A question for you: Do you believe in creationism / ID or in evolution? Do you care to say why. Will you justify that position?

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

Is there a relationship between your user ID and avatar?

Hello Jeremy,I appreciate your position on jumping in, but it is not at all necessary. Indeed, I estimate it is the best way, jump right in and have your say. The only thing I would personally request is to ask hard questions, and give hard answers. On the assumption you wish to learn and grow, if (When) someone asks a question you don't like, those are the most important questions to answer. The more you dislike a question and the more you dislike its possible answer, the more that question should be answered.Sometimes questions cross over from questioning a position to one than can been seen as a thinly veiled slander. I do this all too often. But perspective plays large here. There are many (at one time or another, everyone) that take a challenge of a position as a personal affront. Differentiation can be difficult.To a small part of your position: This is a point that I think is seldom well considered. How much time has been available for evolution? That is to say evolution in the small (small changes) and evolution in the large (large changes)? We toss the number one million about with abandon, but one million years is an extremely long time. It is huge. At 20 years per generation, there are 50,000 generations in a million years. The great apes do not wait 20 years to begin breeding and it is pretty certain that we humans did not and do not always wait that long. So we see that 50,000 generations is quite conservative.For cellular life the generational cycle is days or hours. For animals at the dog and cat level, one year, maybe two. IOW (in other words), the number of opportunities for evolutional change in one million years is phenomenal. From what I read, estimates of life go back 3.5 billion years. I know this is obvious, but it bears mention to set the stage, that is 3,500 instances of one million years.The differences between our DNA and that of chimpanzees are but a few percent. Once a certain level of complexity is achieved, a minor change can make what appear to be incredibly large differences. Chimpanzees are self aware. The chemically evaluated change in DNA between them and us is minor, the effect is huge.Something like 50% to 75% of human conceptions fail before the mother aware any thing has happened. Maybe many of those failures were evolutionary changes that were not successful. Something to think about.How many opportunities have there been for beneficial evolution? When seriously considered, the number is huge.To be blatant, I have lost my fondness of religion, to say nothing of creationism and ID.

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

Hello Richard, To paraphrase a bit:Evil comes from evil and because we have evil there exists a(an evil) being with evil from (and for all of) eternity!Love,
bkelly

Why do you think that is true?I responded to you in another thread and am hoping you will respond to that post.

For thoughts to be imagined in your head, of course, a consciousness must exist. For matter (atoms and the such), energy, and for worlds to exist, there is no need for anything thing other than the matter to exist. Matter and energy do not require a consciousness.If you are certain that this is not true, tell us why.

Hello Jeremy,While reading other posts I see that you have not responded to replies made to you. Do you still visit this forum? We would like to hear what you think of the replies that were written to you.

Hello Guido, Here is the core of our disagreement. I hold that the universe exists and has no need of god. I see no reason for the universe to need god. How do you know that the universe exists because of the presence of god.Before you answer, allow me lay out a few definitions.Belief: something that we hold to be true. It may or may not be ture, but we claim it is and behave as though it is.Knowledge: something that has been substantiated as being true. Gravity has been verified, that the earth is round and the sun is the center of the universe has been verified.That god created anything has not been verified. Can you verify that god created the universe?