PaulK, what do you define as a scientific theory? Scientific theory as defined by wikipedia is:
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
Would you agree to this definition?
quote:
Evolution is a scientific theory. It does not deal with the origin of life. It can be observed on a small scale in fast-breeding organisms (bacteria are good).
Show when, what, and who. When was it observed? What was observed to evolve? Who observed the process?
quote:
Overall entropy is increasing. Local decreases in entropy are perfectly permissible (if they weren't then refrigerators would be impossible!).
Do you fully understand how a refrigerator functions? This is how wikipedia defines the function of a refrigerator:
The vapor compression cycle is used in most household refrigerators. In this cycle, a circulating refrigerant such as Freon enters the compressor as a vapor at its boiling point. The vapor is compressed and exits the compressor as a superheated vapor. The superheated vapor travels through part of the condenser which removes the superheat by cooling the vapor. The vapor travels through the remainder of the condenser and is condensed into a liquid at its boiling point. The saturated liquid refrigerant passes through the expansion valve (also called a pelvic thrust) where its pressure abruptly decreases. The decrease in pressure results in the flash evaporation and auto-refrigeration of a portion of the liquid (typically, less than half of the liquid flashes). The cold and partially vaporized refrigerant travels through the coil or tubes in the evaporator. There a fan circulates room air across the coil or tubes, and the refrigerant is totally vaporized, extracting heat from the air which is then returned to the food compartment. The refrigerant vapour returns to the compressor inlet to complete the thermodynamic cycle.
The refrigerator does remove heat energy from one area and releases it at another area. This would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, however, everyone knows that a fridge has to be plugged into a power point to function as it was designed. This introduction of an outside power source negates your argument, because the some energy is then lost. To take it further, one could say that during the power generation process at the power plant, more energy is lost because of the burning of fossil fuels in the power plant. ( It could be a nuclear power plant or an alternative energy power plant. Energy in a nuclear power plant is lost as radiation, and alternative power plants, such as wind powered fans, lose energy to friction during the process of turning the blades. Not all the energy of the wind is collected, some is lost to friction.)
Hello, Chiroptera, thanks for the welcome.
quote:
not all potential past histories are consistent with the world that we see today.
Both models postulate that conditions were different in the past. The difference, however, is that Special Creation postulates that conditions were different because of divine influence. Evolution would rely on everything functioning naturally with completely natural cause with no interference or influence from an outside divinity.
quote:
The theory of evolution certainly makes predictions as to what we should see in the world today. In so far that these predictions have always been born out, we may say that evolution has been "proven". As much as Special Creation makes predictions that have not been born out, then we can say that Special Creation has been disproven.
This could also be written:
The Special Creation Model certainly makes predictions as to what we should see in the world today. In so far that these predictions have always been born out, we may say that Special Creation has been "proven". As much as the Evolutionary model makes predictions that have not been born out, then we can say that Evolution has been disproven.Both models have shortfalls, nothing man has designed can be termed "perfect".
quote:
it is hard to determine because creationists either do not give a quantifiable definition of "information", or they change the definition whenever it is convenient.
Are you saying that the Evolutionary Model is based on the definitions that Creationists use?
quote:
Actually, the only thing Special Creation postulates is that originally the world was perfect, then it was imperfect.
Is this truly the only thing Special Creation postulates? The Special Creation Model is based on the Biblical book of Genesis. (A discussion on the book of Genesis would be in the theological discussion areas. This Discussion is not in the theological area, so we will all stay on topic.) Special Creation postulates that although God created everything pure, perfect, and complete. Man chose to disobey God's commands and thus God changed the laws by which the universe runs on. (Through the curse) He changed them from laws of conservation into laws of disintegration. This is written in Genesis, a book that is thousands of years old. A book that was around a long time before the Evolutionary model. I will stop there, any further and it will go theological.
Hello, Modulous, How are you today?
Ok, I'll admit, I like that story.
quote:
Imagine a coke bottle gets opened in a sealed room. Gas escapes the bottle and spreads across the room. That is the thermodynamically appropriate state of affairs. Those molecules are not likely to end up all convened back in the bottle.
Ok, that’s all fine.
quote:
However, if a little demon lived on the bottle top and this demon grabbed the gas molecules that were in the bottle and leaves those that weren't and precedes puts these gas molecules back into the bottle, while simultaneously preventing the release of any gas molecules from the bottle, then eventually the bottle will be filled with all that gas, despite the thermodynamic absurdity of this happening without the demon.
That’s alri.......WAIT! This story includes a supernatural being, how is that natural means? It most certainly is not natural.
quote:
Maxwell proposed that a selective entity could create a system in which that which seems thermodynamically improbable, turns out to be inevitable. This does not break the second law though - since the demon has to do work to be a selective entity. That work is not 100% efficient, some energy is lost as entropy.
Agreed, the demon would certainly need to do a lot of work, but where does the demon get its energy? The demon must get its energy by natural means for it to comply with evolution, even then, only if the Evolutionary model must still naturalistically describe the presence of a supernatural demon.
quote:
Evolution has a selective entity. It is called natural selection, and the theory of evolution describes it. It describes natural selection as an inefficient system - a lot of energy and inefficient work goes into creating babies, and those babies growing and eating and so on, and not all of them survive. It is a very wasteful process and the end result is a hell of a lot of entropy increase in the universe.
Wow, is that an omnipotent selective entity controlling evolution? the very thing evolution denies existence?
quote:
Evolution is not a perpetual motion machine, cut of its power, and it runs out of steam.
That’s right too. However, where did evolution get its energy in the first place without invoking supernatural interference?
Hello Parasomnium.
quote:
Suppose I have a model that explains how gravity works: it's caused by invisible oxygen-breathing pixies that push things to earth. If they didn't do this, everything would be floating around all the time.
Good, but how do you know that there are pixies in the vacuum chamber when the air is pumped out? Remember the pixies are invisible. Then, if the pixies are invisible, how do you know that they breathe oxygen, how do you know they breathe at all? This can't be shown by science because there is no way to observe the pixies at work. If this model was true, the experiment designed to "disprove" it would not be valid. Everyone can see the same effects of gravity in the solar system, which is in empty space(a vacuum), as those on Earth.
quote:
It's all very well to go and reinvent the theory of evolution
Can you provide a better definition? The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems. That’s what evolution proposes to do, develop lower things into higher things, disorganized things into organized things, simple things into complex things.
quote:
First you say that all scientists agree on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and then you say they don't
Wow, you think so? All scientists do accept the Second Law of Thermodynamics as fact, its observable, it can be experimented on, and it’s proven to be a known phenomenon. Not all scientists are, however, Evolutionists.
Hello RAZD.
quote:
So when new species are observed to evolve, how does this not violate the second law for Special Creation?
So what are you calling the Second law for Special Creation? Is it the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The same Second Law of Thermodynamics that is scientifically verified as known and proven FACT? WOW! That statement would support Special Creation. With observed evolution, tell me when it was observed, what was observed to be evolving, and who observed it. Then you would have a valid argument.
Fallacycop, I have covered all that you have proposed.
See you all later.
™ Version 4.2
