Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use

Creationist argument: Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that disorder can only increase over time.Bad evolutionist refutation: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only works for a closed system. Earth is not a closed system.Why it's bad:While the refutation is somewhat right, it's not the correct way at tackling this issue.Creationist argument: Speciation has never been directly observed, therefore evolution is based on faith.Bad evolutionist refutation: Speciation is observed many times in laboratories. For example, some members of an observed population of snails gained a slight mutation which changes the shape of their shells, making it impossible for them to mate with members of the individuals without the mutation. Therefore, we now have two species.Why it's bad: Yes, we observe all the time small changes in a population that could result in the individuals not being able to mate. But in most of these cases, gene flow will very likely to reoccur. Another reason why this type of "speciation" must not be used is because the creationist could also point out the impossibility of mating between a Yorkshire Terrier and a Great Dane. But the main reason why such instances of "speciation" must not be used is because the evolutionist has just fallen into the creationist's trap. The creationist has always used the strawman that evolution works in the following way: Dog gives birth to cat, cow gives birth to dolphin, chimp gives birth to alligator, etc. Even the fastest speciation event takes a lot longer than that, damn it.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

(1) The idea behind the creationist argument using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is to advocate the idea that the Fall is what's responsible for the imperfections we see in organisms. In other words, the creationist is making the argument that all life eventually breaks down because life itself is a violation of the 2nd L of T.This is essentially false. Let's take a look at a single cell, for example. There appears to be less disorder, or entropy, within the cell than the surrounding environment. If we look at the mechanics of the cell, we see that the lipid bilayer of the cell acts as a barrier that selectively pumps out ions such as potassium, sodium, chloride, etc. while selectively pumps in essential minerals to support itself and give it a metabolism. In other words, the cell is producing less disorder within itself while causing its surrounding environment to have more disorder. No violation of the 2nd law here.Another way of looking at this is that the cell and its surrounding environment makes up a system. After all, the cell cannot survive on its own! This is the crux of the matter. The creationist implies that the cell (or life) is an isolated system and that this system can only head toward more disorder, or sustain more entropy, over time. Disputing whether the system is open or close is somewhat right and somewhat wrong. In the one hand, it is true that the system we are looking at is open, but on the other pointing out that it is open serves no purpose in explaining why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated.(2) Speaking of open and close systems, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, under ideal conditions, should only work for a closed system. But obviously, closed systems aren't very common in nature. In fact, I would argue that the only true closed system out there is the universe itself.However, if we only use approximations, the 2nd Law works for both openned and closed systems. This is like the ideal gas law. Obviously, there is no such thing as a true ideal gas. But the law itself works really really well for real gas in conditions that do not have too high or too low temperatures and do not have too high or oo low pressures.The Earth's biomass is an openned system because it receives most of its energy from the sun. As long as the sun is there, it will continue to exist. No violation of the 2nd Law here.
------------Ok, I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the evo in this case is making it sound like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to life, when in fact there is no violation of the law here.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I somewhat agree. However, I think it is reasonable to use the word disorder in this particular case.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Let's look at it this way.Person A: If you pour mouthwash instead of gasoline into your car, you can save a lot of money.Person B: Take a look at your math again. Mouthwash actually costs more per gallon than gasoline.Person B unintentionally makes the argument that a car can run on mouthwash.In my example, the evo unintentionally makes the argument that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to life.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I don't know how many times I've heard the following statement from someone who believes in evolution.Evo claim: Evolution is true because there are enough scientific proof for it.My response.Proof? It is my personal belief that the word proof should never be used in science. There's no "proof" of anything. Instead, we have mountains and mountains of evidence, all of which point toward the same conclusion.Why do I make a fuss out of this? Because the word proof gives the false implication that whatever that is referred to is ever unchanging. We use the word proof to commonly describe affirmation of something definite, and thereafter we can always refer back to the proven thing. There are mathematical proofs. Even if the world ends tomorrow, these mathematical concepts that have been proven will remain true.A scientific theory, on the other hand, is subject to modification. When we say the theory of evolution is proven, we give the false impression that it's more of a doctrine than a theory, which is pretty much a major creationist argument against evolution.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Well, I guess you are right. I should have said there's no proof when we are talking about scientific theories. Not really. People need to understand that the bulk of the scientific community is very willing to abandon a theory once it's been disproven. You can't disprove something that has already been proven. While I somewhat agree with you, the skeptic in me still feel uncomfortable saying evolution has been proven. It kinda goes against everything I've been taught about science.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Oh come now, you know as well as I do that court rulings and science are two entirely different things. Well, most people seem to think that there is a big fat man in the sky with long white beard who watches you all the time even when you masturbate. Doesn't mean I have to use god as an explanation for why things fall downward everytime I try to explain gravity.The whole point of this debate is for us to try to educate people and try to get them to get away from a lot of the common beliefs.But here's a nitpick just for kicks. In courts, people are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is different from just proven guilty.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Too bad for them, then. If they can't understand that the sense of proof they seek is an illusion, what makes you think they can understand the evidence at all? Which is why one of the first things I do when I really engage with a science illiterate person is to try to explain to him why we don't use the word proof as liberally as is commonly used.Remember that most people out there think a simple statement "I heard somewhere that..." or "I read somewhere that..." is proof enough of any wacky idea one can imagine. I honestly don't think it serves our purpose to get off on the wrong foot just because the person we are talking to got off on the wrong foot.I still say we try to make it clear that the theory of evolution isn't "proven" just like the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravity. Which is exactly what I am afraid of. Perhaps I have too much of an elitist mentality. I just don't think it's a good idea to oversimplify things for the sake of people not knowing any better. Just how many times we've seen people who never got anything beyond a high school diploma but happened to have memorized 2 words from their high school bio text book showed up and declared themselves expert biologists? Even when I was a TA of physics and math, I ran into college students that thought they knew better than me even though they were C students. I think talking in their oversimplified terms will only encourage them to be even more arrogant. Ok, you got me there.Added by edit.That you in the avatar?Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Which is precisely why before anything I try to explain what proof is and what evidence is. We really have to try to lead them away from common language and misconceptions before anything can be accomplished. And my point is we need to show them that what they are looking for is a fantasy. Haha. If they think saying "I have no proof of evolution..." is the same as admitting defeat, then I am wasting my time trying to talk to them. I see... Sorry, never been a fan of cowgirl movies.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Ok, so you have a very good point there. However, what if we have a creo that is a little more knowledgable and turns around to bite us in the ass?Creo: Where`s your 'proof'?
Evo: Millions of confirming experiments by millions of scientists worldwide
Creo: I thought a scientific theory can never be proven.
Evo: ....
Creo: The TOE is just a 'theory'
Evo: Really? Then explain why millions of experiments, etc. confirm
Creo: Yeah? Then tell us an experiment that confirms that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Evo: ...
Creo: Evolution has failed to explain life`s origins
Evo: Want to buy a 2-y-o car with 500 miles on the clock for $100.00? Irre...
Creo: You're trying to change the subject. We're not talking about cars. We are talking about science.
Evo: What I meant to say is that you are talking about two entirely different subjects.
Creo: No, I'm not. You're the one that brought cars into this. How is car related to our topic?This is precisely why I think debates with creos are a waste of time. Most of the time, the crowd that is listening can't tell the difference between bullshit from pizza.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Learning requires an instructor and a student. Can't do anything if the student doesn't want to learn.For example, can you see Rob actually shut up for once and try to learn something? I agree. You have to start there, and then blow their misconceptions out of the water. "Proofs" in terms of scientific theories are misconceptions that must be blown out of the water.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

You missed the cr ac kp ot s.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This is called a nitpick. He was relying on the fact that it is well known that at the time newtonian mechanics couldn't explain certain observations, such as the orbit of mercury. Nitpicking on his choice of words would hardly move the conversation forward, would it? This really is the crux of the matter as far as what I've been taught. Even among the science minded people, there is often the misunderstanding that science works more in a robotic manner than not. In reality, true science is more like porn... I know it when I see it.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!