6 Falsified 'Scientific' Theories / 6 Scientific Facts.

[RobbyPants]

 

I don’t think we understand each other. Let me put it like this: show me (either in living realm, or in the fossils) a USELESS organ or member – that is, one that is (was) not used AS IT IS. Perhaps now you’ll understand.

 

Meanwhile, all you have are different kinds of eyes that are ALL USED (as they are). And different kinds of limbs that are ALL USED. Now you tell me: has the living animal survived THIS LONG (as a species, or rather kind) with THOSE eyes? And THOSE limbs? I only have to look at them to answer “yes”. And I wonder how you could possibly answer “no”…

 

...

 

 

 

 Speaking of non-functional eyes, what about those blind fish in dark caves? They could see (if there were light), but they don't. Their eyes are evolving away slowly.  

 

Their eyes are DEVOLVING slowly. The entire universe is decaying, buddy.

 

Funny, even you say that, here:

“Given enough time, they'll probably either vanish, or be able to detect something other than visible light.”

 

 

In order for your first part to hold true, you'd have to prove that a malformed limb hurt the chances of survival. If it didn't, then it wouldn't stop the creature from procreating. Sure, there are plenty of mutations that hurt creatures, but are you definitively telling me that the beginnings of an eye (that couldn't yet sense light) would get the creature killed? How? Why?

 

 

 

Also, your use of the word "devolving" is puzzling. Sure, the fish is losing sight, but it doesn't need sight. Any change is evolution, whether you feel it is going backward or forward. If being more "simple" suddenly made it easier for an organism to survive or procreate, you can bet that would be the direction in which it would change.

 

Evolution isn't change for the sake of some platonic ideal; it's the response of organisms adapting to their environment based on changes in the environment and mutations.

 

 

 

  How do you know that a creature didn't have non-functional eyes. 

 

How do you know the opposite?

 

 

We have all sort of evidence that thing have evolved over time. So, when we run into a "hole" in the data, you're claiming that we can't possibly assume the same mechanism is in place. It's like we need to be able to see every single organism since the dawn of life on the planet to be able to prove evolution, and if we have one gap, suddenly the entire idea needs to be thrown out the window.

 

 

 

Basically, you're running a God of the gaps argument.

 

 

 

 

  You're missing the context. Yes, people live in the universe, but more importantly, we live on Earth. […]  So, entropy is not increasing on earth, thus, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution on earth.

 

The context was the universe, not Earth…

 

 

The level of entropy in the universe doesn't matter for what is happening on earth. It's quite possible for entropy to behave in one area differently than another when it is getting energy input from a different source. So, if you take your kitchen, for example, and put an ice cube in some water, the ice will eventually melt, and the temperature of the water will get colder, until the temperatures match. Now, pour that water into an ice cube tray, put it in your freezer, and watch the electrical input to the compressor drop the temperature of the water and turn it to ice. When you put energy into a system, it's not isolated. Your freezer doesn't care what is happening in your living room. Even if you have ice cubes melting all over the rest of your house, your freezer is still doing its thing.

 

We talk about evolution in context of the earth, because that's where we can observe it. When you change the subject to the universe, that is you attempting to abuse the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't work that way, and you're just shifting goal posts to try to keep talking about an isolated system in a system that is not isolated.

[neil_]

  In order for your first part to hold true, you'd have to prove that a malformed limb hurt the chances of survival. 

 

No. I think you tried enough understanding what you want from what I say, instead of understanding what I actually say.

 

 

 If it didn't, then it wouldn't stop the creature from procreating.  

 

Really? How does survival of one animal have anything to do with procreating? I told you we’re not talking about the same things.

 

 

 Sure, there are plenty of mutations that hurt creatures, but are you definitively telling me that the beginnings of an eye (that couldn't yet sense light) would get the creature killed?  

 

No, I wasn’t telling you that. But I’m telling it now. So let’s see how you’d manage to keep alive an animal (and moreover, a species) that can’t see in a world full of predators. Looking forward.

 

 

  Also, your use of the word "devolving" is puzzling. 

 

Let’s stick to decaying then. As long as by it you understand what you should: the opposite of evolution.

 

 

  Sure, the fish is losing sight, but it doesn't need sight. 

 

And how exactly could you possibly tell that? Let me guess: because it’s losing it…

 

I think I told you repeatedly that all you have are circles.

 

 

 Any change is evolution  

 

No.

 

 

 whether you feel it is going backward or forward  

 

Firstly, you or I don’t FEEL anything. We notice how it is, and we argue about it, but we can’t feel it.

 

Secondly, it’s absolutely NOT evolution when it’s decaying.

 

I think I already said this in another thread, but if I didn’t, here it is:

 

Buddy, changing is not evolution. The change must be improvement in order to be called evolution. Just as descent with modification is not evolution. Because having descendants is not evolution: not only those descendants must be different, but they must be improved (evolved) in order for you to call it evolution.

 

And guess what? Not only you can’t prove the animals we now look at as fossils had any descendants (let alone different descendants and let alone improved descendants), but the living world also tells the same thing: dogs produce dogs and nothing other than dogs. Moreover, the further you depart from what would be an ideal “average” dog (the original dog), the further the possibility of variation decreases dramatically. In other words, you will never get something similar to an Afghan hound by mating two dogs similar to Pekingese.

[neil_]

If being more "simple" suddenly made it easier for an organism to survive or procreate, you can bet that would be the direction in which it would change.   

 

Can you give me an example of simple organisms? Because I thought they are all complicated… Immensely more complicated than a space shuttle, for example.

 

 

 Evolution isn't change for the sake of some platonic ideal; it's the response of organisms adapting to their environment based on changes in the environment and mutations.  

 

Wait… I thought in another thread you claimed biological evolution has nothing to do with geological evolution…

 

 

  We have all sort of evidence that thing have evolved over time. 

 

No, you have no direct evidence for macroevolution. You extrapolate it from microevolution.

 

 

 So, when we run into a "hole" in the data, you're claiming that we can't possibly assume the same mechanism is in place.  

 

No, buddy. What I claim is that you have no data at all…

 

 

   Basically, you're running a God of the gaps argument. 

 

No, buddy, that would be exactly the opposite of what you were previously talking about.

 

 

  The level of entropy in the universe doesn't matter for what is happening on earth.  

 

You talked about Earth, not me, buddy. While the discussion was about the universe…

 

 

  When you put energy into a system, it's not isolated.   

 

That’s what the discussion was about. So, who put(s) energy into the universe?

 

 

  We talk about evolution in context of the earth, because that's where we can observe it.  

 

Thank you for throwing away cosmic evolution and chemical evolution. Now there are only 2 more to be thrown away: the geological evolution and the biological evolution.

 

 

  When you change the subject to the universe  

 

The subject WAS the universe, I don’t know how many more times to tell you that…

 

 

   that is you attempting to abuse the second law of thermodynamics  

 

No, buddy. You evolutionists abuse of ANY and ALL laws. And not even then you manage to present a working universe…

[alphaparticle]

 

 

I don’t think we understand each other. Let me put it like this: show me (either in living realm, or in the fossils) a USELESS organ or member – that is, one that is (was) not used AS IT IS. Perhaps now you’ll understand.

 

Meanwhile, all you have are different kinds of eyes that are ALL USED (as they are). And different kinds of limbs that are ALL USED. Now you tell me: has the living animal survived THIS LONG (as a species, or rather kind) with THOSE eyes? And THOSE limbs? I only have to look at them to answer “yes”. And I wonder how you could possibly answer “no”…

 

...

 

 

 

 Speaking of non-functional eyes, what about those blind fish in dark caves? They could see (if there were light), but they don't. Their eyes are evolving away slowly.  

 

Their eyes are DEVOLVING slowly. The entire universe is decaying, buddy.

 

Funny, even you say that, here:

“Given enough time, they'll probably either vanish, or be able to detect something other than visible light.”

 

 

In order for your first part to hold true, you'd have to prove that a malformed limb hurt the chances of survival. If it didn't, then it wouldn't stop the creature from procreating. Sure, there are plenty of mutations that hurt creatures, but are you definitively telling me that the beginnings of an eye (that couldn't yet sense light) would get the creature killed? How? Why?

 

 

 

Also, your use of the word "devolving" is puzzling. Sure, the fish is losing sight, but it doesn't need sight. Any change is evolution, whether you feel it is going backward or forward. If being more "simple" suddenly made it easier for an organism to survive or procreate, you can bet that would be the direction in which it would change.

 

Evolution isn't change for the sake of some platonic ideal; it's the response of organisms adapting to their environment based on changes in the environment and mutations.

 

 

 

  How do you know that a creature didn't have non-functional eyes. 

 

How do you know the opposite?

 

 

We have all sort of evidence that thing have evolved over time. So, when we run into a "hole" in the data, you're claiming that we can't possibly assume the same mechanism is in place. It's like we need to be able to see every single organism since the dawn of life on the planet to be able to prove evolution, and if we have one gap, suddenly the entire idea needs to be thrown out the window.

 

 

 

Basically, you're running a God of the gaps argument.

 

 

 

 

  You're missing the context. Yes, people live in the universe, but more importantly, we live on Earth. […]  So, entropy is not increasing on earth, thus, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution on earth.

 

The context was the universe, not Earth…

 

 

The level of entropy in the universe doesn't matter for what is happening on earth. It's quite possible for entropy to behave in one area differently than another when it is getting energy input from a different source. So, if you take your kitchen, for example, and put an ice cube in some water, the ice will eventually melt, and the temperature of the water will get colder, until the temperatures match. Now, pour that water into an ice cube tray, put it in your freezer, and watch the electrical input to the compressor drop the temperature of the water and turn it to ice. When you put energy into a system, it's not isolated. Your freezer doesn't care what is happening in your living room. Even if you have ice cubes melting all over the rest of your house, your freezer is still doing its thing.

 

We talk about evolution in context of the earth, because that's where we can observe it. When you change the subject to the universe, that is you attempting to abuse the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't work that way, and you're just shifting goal posts to try to keep talking about an isolated system in a system that is not isolated.

 

 

Yeah I really don't understand why people try to run the second law of thermodynamics against evolution. The only thing I can think is that they are trying to put words on the intuition that 'things don't just get ordered on their own'. But, there are other examples in which people don't seem to have that intuition, such as stellar evolution. A spiral galaxy certain seems more complex and ordered than a giant nebula. In that case it's easier to see how perturbing it might cause local areas to collapse, due to gravity, inciting star formation, etc. Even stars pass on 'genetic' information in terms of the elements they have in them. Still, Most people don't seem to intuitively need to turn to direction divine intervention there either.

 

Though I believe God created everything most of the creative acts seems to be from the standpoint of having created certain physical laws with certain initial conditions (something I find personally very impressive). I suspect that God directly intervened in the creation of humans, at least to give us souls. But as far as our physical bodies go, I don't see them as categorically different from star formation insofar as we are made out of the same 'stuff', and subject to the same physical laws. My carbon atoms were made by stars in nuclear reactions, my muscles work by chemical interactions. That there are a lot of them and that they are therefore hard to describe at once doesn't make them categorically different.

[RobbyPants]

 

 Evolution isn't change for the sake of some platonic ideal; it's the response of organisms adapting to their environment based on changes in the environment and mutations.  

 

Wait… I thought in another thread you claimed biological evolution has nothing to do with geological evolution…

 

 

No, you're putting words in my mouth. In the other thread, I said that proving the big bang wrong wouldn't disprove evolution and vice versa. It's common for creationists to mix them together because they are both separate theories that don't agree with the two creation stories in Genesis.

 

 

 

 

  We have all sort of evidence that thing have evolved over time. 

 

No, you have no direct evidence for macroevolution. You extrapolate it from microevolution.

 

 

 So, when we run into a "hole" in the data, you're claiming that we can't possibly assume the same mechanism is in place.  

 

No, buddy. What I claim is that you have no data at all…

 

 

Invertebrate to Vertebrate

Unnamed Upper (U.) Pre-Cambrian chordate -- First to bear a primitive notochord; archaetypical chordate.

Pikaia gracilens -- Middle (M.) Cambrian chordate with lancelet-like morphology.

Haikouella -- Lower (L.) Cambrian chordate, first to bear a skull; archaetypical craniate.

Haikouichthys -- L. Cambrian quasi-vertebrate, intermediate in developing a vertebral column; archaetypical vertebrate.

Conodonts -- U. Cambrian to Triassic quasi-vertebrates with spinal cord; "bug-eyed lampreys".

Myllokunmingia -- L. Cambrian vertebrate with primitive spinal column; oldest true crown-group vertebrate.

Arandaspis -- L. Ordovician vertebrate, armoured jawless fish (ostracoderm), oldest known vertebrate with hard parts known from (mostly) complete fossils.

Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate

Birkenia -- Silurian primitive, jawless fish, a typical member of the Anaspida

Cephalaspis -- Silurian armoured jawless fish, archaetypical member of the "Osteostraca," sister group to all jawed vertebrates.

Shuyu -- Silurian to Devonian, armoured jawless fish belonging to Galeaspida, related to Osteostraca. Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates. This similarity is directly implied with the translation of its name, "Dawn Fish," with the implication that it represents the "dawn of jawed vertebrates."

Acanthodian to shark

Ptomacanthus -- sharklike fish, originally described as an acanthodian fish: brain anatomy demonstrates that it is an intermediate between acanthodians and sharks.

Cladoselache -- primitive/basal shark.

Tristychius -- another sharklike fish.

Ctenacanthus -- primitive/basal shark.

Paleospinax -- sharklike jaw, primitive teeth.

Spathobatis -- Ray-like fish.

Protospinax -- Ancestral to both sharks and skates.

Primitive jawed fish to bony fish

Acanthodians -- superficially similar to early bony fishes, and some have been identified as being the ancestors of sharks.

Palaeoniscoids -- primitive bony fishes.

Canobius, Aeduella -- palaeoniscoids with more advanced jaws.

Parasemionotus -- combination of modern cheeks with more primitive features, like lungs

Oreochima -- first teleost fish

Leptolepids -- vaguely herring-like ancestors of modern teleost fish. Lung modified into swim bladder.

Amphistium and Heteronectes -- percomorphs that demonstrate the transition of the eye location of flatfishes.

Fish to amphibian

Paleoniscoids -- both ancestral to modern fish and land vertebrates.

Osteolepis -- modified limb bones, amphibian like skull and teeth.

Kenichthys -- shows the position of exhaling nostrils moving from front to fish to throat in tetrapods in its halfway point, in the teeth

Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion -- fin bones similarly structured to amphibian feet, but no toes yet, and still fishlike bodily proportions.

Panderichthys, Elpistostege -- tetrapod-like bodily proportions.

Obruchevichthys -- fragmented skeleton with intermediate characteristics, possible first tetrapod.

Tiktaalik -- a fish with developing legs. Also appearance of ribs and neck.

Acanthostega gunnari -- famous intermediate fossil. most primitive fossil that is known to be a tetrapod

Ichthyostega -- like Acanthostega, another fishlike amphibian

Hynerpeton -- A little more advanced then Acanthostega and Ichtyostega

Labyrinthodonts -- still many fishlike features, but tailfins have disappeared

Lungfish--A fish-that has lungs.

Primitive to modern amphibians

Temnospondyls

Dendrerpeton acadianum

Archegosaurus decheni

Eryops megacephalus

Trematops

Amphibamus lyelli

Doleserpeton annectens

Triadobatrachus primitive frog

Vieraella

Karaurus primitive salamander

Amphibian to reptile

Proterogyrinus

Limnoscelis

Tseajaia

Solenodonsaurus

Hylonomus

Paleothyris

Early reptile to turtle

Captorhinus

Scutosaurus

Odontochelys Semitestacea -- partial formation of a turtle shell, showing how the hard underbelly, or plastron, formed first.

Deltavjatia vjatkensis

Proganochelys

Early reptile to diapsid (dinosaurs and modern reptiles except for turtles)

Hylonomus

Paleothyris

Petrolacosaurus

Araeoscelis

Apsisaurus

Claudiosaurus

Planocephalosaurus

Protorosaurus

Prolacerta

Proterosuchus

Hyperodapedon

Trilophosaurus

Reptile to mammal

Paleothyris

Protoclepsydrops haplous

Clepsydrops

Archaeothyris

Varanops

Haptodus

Dimetrodon

Sphenacodon

Biarmosuchia

Procynosuchus

Dvinia

Thrinaxodon

Cynognathus

Diademodon

Probelesodon

Probainognathus

Exaeretodon

Oligokyphus

Kayentatherium

Pachygenelus

Diarthrognathus

Adelobasileus cromptoni

Sinoconodon

Kuehneotherium

Eozostrodon

Morganucodon -- a transition between "mammal-like reptiles" and "true mammals".

Haldanodon

Peramus

Endotherium

Kielantherium

Aegialodon

Steropodon galmani

Vincelestes neuquenianus

Pariadens kirklandi

Kennalestes

Asioryctes

Cimolestes

Procerberus

Gypsonictops

Dinosaur to bird

Allosaurus --A large therapod with a wishbone

Coelophysis

Compsognathus --A small coeleosaur with a wishbone

Eoraptor

Epidendrosaurus

Herrerasaurus

Ceratosaurus

Compsognathus

Sinosauropteryx

Protarchaeopteryx

Caudipteryx

Velociraptor

Deinonychus

Oviraptor

Sinovenator

Beipiaosaurus

Lisboasaurus

Sinornithosaurus

Microraptor -- a feathered bird with distinctly dinosaurian characteristics, such as its tail.

Xiaotingia -- slightly earlier than Archaeopteryx, slightly more like a dinosaur and less like a bird

Archaeopteryx -- the famous bird-with-teeth.

Rahonavis

Confuciusornis

Sinornis

Patagopteryx

Ambiortus

Hesperornis

Apsaravis

Ichthyornis

Columba One of many typical modern birds

Transitional mammalian fossils

Primates

Darwinius masillae -- a link between earlier primates and later ones.

Non-human primate to human

Aquatic ape hypothesis -- a very controversial suggestion, aquatic apes may or may not have existed

Australopithecus -- a genus of bipedal apes

Australopithecus sediba -- advanced australopithecus showing more human features

Homo habilis -- a transitional form from Australopithecus to later Homo

Homo rudolfensis -- a type of Homo habilis or a different species

Homo ergaster -- a form of Homo erectus or a distinct species

Homo erectus -- a transitional form from Australopithecus to later Homo (Latin for humans) species

Homo heidelbergensis -- A possible common ancestor of modern man and homo neanderthalensis

Homo neanderthalensis -- They may or may not have done Humpy bumpy with modern humans.

Cro-magnon -- considered early modern human and perhaps as smart as we are

Cetaceans

Indohyus -- a vaguely chevrotain-like or raccoon-like aquatic artiodactyl ungulate with an inner ear identical to that of whales.

Ambulocetus-- an early whale that looks like a mammalian version of a crocodile

Pakicetus -- an early, semi-aquatic whale, a superficially wolf-like animal believed to be a direct ancestor of modern whales.

Rhodocetus -- An early whale with comparatively large hindlegs: not only represents a transition between semi-aquatic whales, like Ambulocetus, and obligately aquatic whales, like Basilosaurus.

Basilosaurus -- A large, elongated whale with vestigial hind flippers: transition from early marine whales (like Rhodocetus) to modern whales

Dorudon -- A small whale with vestigial hind flippers, close relative of Basilosaurus.

 

 

  The level of entropy in the universe doesn't matter for what is happening on earth.  

 

You talked about Earth, not me, buddy. While the discussion was about the universe…

 

 

 

 

  When you put energy into a system, it's not isolated.   

 

That’s what the discussion was about. So, who put(s) energy into the universe?

 

 

 

 

  We talk about evolution in context of the earth, because that's where we can observe it.  

 

Thank you for throwing away cosmic evolution and chemical evolution. Now there are only 2 more to be thrown away: the geological evolution and the biological evolution.

 

 

 

 

  When you change the subject to the universe  

 

The subject WAS the universe, I don’t know how many more times to tell you that…

 

 

Well, I really can't explain it any more simply, than that. You're misusing the law. Just because everything exists in the universe doesn't mean that we can't look at other sub-systems (that are closed or open). I mean, seriously: if everything exists in the universe, and the universe is an isolated system, and we have to always look at the universe and not earth, why does the study of thermodynamics even make a distinction between open, closed, and isolated systems?

[neil_]

    No, you're putting words in my mouth.   

 

I don’t think I am. But if I take the time to check that and if I find it, will you admit it and apologize accordingly?

 

 

    In the other thread, I said that proving the big bang wrong wouldn't disprove evolution  and vice versa 

 

Big bang is nothing other than cosmic evolution. So IT IS EVOLUTION, after all…

 

 

   It's common for creationists to mix them together because they are both separate theories that don't agree with the two creation stories in Genesis.    

 

You mean two separate stories that don’t agree with the ONE creation REPORT in Genesis.

 

Regardless, you should tell this not to me (I already know it), but to the theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary Christians, or whatever you’d like to call them). Because those fellows are somehow convinced that, when reading Genesis, they’re reading the big bang theory…

 

Or Darwin’s theory…

 

 

 

Now, in regard to your extensive list of nothing: I ask you one more time: let’s settle on ONE clear example of macroevolution (not a hundred and not a thousand). One by which, to BOTH of us, macroevolution will stand or fall. And I really want your solemn promise that indeed you will quit believing in evolution if you can’t give that one example. Meanwhile, you have my solemn promise that indeed I will believe in evolution if you CAN give me that one example. An example that we can all see, with our own eyes (careful: not your IMAGINATION). So show me an animal producing a different kind of animal. Moreover, an improved animal. Deal?

 

 

    Well, I really can't explain it any more simply, than that. You're misusing the law.   

 

No. I didn’t do any such thing. I only made some comments on the arguments belonging to others. And I only told you that the discussion was indeed about the universe. That’s all I did.

[RobbyPants]

No, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

I don’t think I am. But if I take the time to check that and if I find it, will you admit it and apologize accordingly?

 

In the other thread, I said that proving the big bang wrong wouldn't disprove evolution  and vice versa

 

Big bang is nothing other than cosmic evolution. So IT IS EVOLUTION, after all…

Sure. I suppose it's possibly you're thinking of one thread and I'm thinking of another.

Oh, I suppose under that definition, yes. Typically, when I see the word "evolution" in these debates, it is in the context of the theory of evolution. So, I think that explains the confusion. 

 

 

It's common for creationists to mix them together because they are both separate theories that don't agree with the two creation stories in Genesis.

 

You mean two separate stories that don’t agree with the ONE creation REPORT in Genesis.

No, they are two separate stories. Granted, there is a lot of overlap between them, and each version has details that the other lacks, but they are two different stories. It might look like two re-tellings of the same story on the surface, but there are a few differences between them. Genesis 1 has the world created in six days, with man and woman crated simultaneously after the animals. In Genesis 2, God creates man, then the plants and animals, and finally woman.

Regardless, you should tell this not to me (I already know it), but to the theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary Christians, or whatever you’d like to call them). Because those fellows are somehow convinced that, when reading Genesis, they’re reading the big bang theory…

 

Or Darwin’s theory…

Well, it's anecdotal for sure, but the Christians I know that accept the big bang and evolution tend to do so from the idea that God was the cause of the big bang. They posit that he created the laws of physics within the universe, then kicked everything off like the most complicated Rub Goldberg in all of history, sat back, and watched everything unfold.

The ideas of the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution don't preclude God, just the two creation accounts in Genesis. If a Christian is willing to accept those stories as metaphorical, then it's pretty easy for them to merge both world views together.

 

 

Now, in regard to your extensive list of nothing: I ask you one more time: let’s settle on ONE clear example of macroevolution (not a hundred and not a thousand). One by which, to BOTH of us, macroevolution will stand or fall. And I really want your solemn promise that indeed you will quit believing in evolution if you can’t give that one example. Meanwhile, you have my solemn promise that indeed I will believe in evolution if you CAN give me that one example. An example that we can all see, with our own eyes (careful: not your IMAGINATION). So show me an animal producing a different kind of animal. Moreover, an improved animal. Deal?

If you're going to ask for evidence, then summarily dismiss it without so much of a reason, perhaps we should both save our time, drop the discussion, and agree to disagree.

 

Well, I really can't explain it any more simply, than that. You're misusing the law.

 

No. I didn’t do any such thing. I only made some comments on the arguments belonging to others. And I only told you that the discussion was indeed about the universe. That’s all I did.

What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open?

Is it possible to discuss thermodynamics in a sub-system (as it pertains specifically to that sub-system) that is Open or Closed, even if it is inside a larger, isolated sub-system? If not, why not?

[neil_]

    Genesis 1 has the world created in six days, with man and woman crated simultaneously after the animals. In Genesis 2, God creates man, then the plants and animals, and finally woman.  

 

For the most part it’s the same account. Only that Genesis 2 gives more detail to the general Creation and also some things are now created differently (not man, neither woman) - but it regards only the Garden of Eden.

 

 

    If a Christian is willing to accept those stories as metaphorical,   

 

That’s the problem – right there. In the end one cannot believe both in men and in God. He (she) has to choose. One cannot have two masters. And his (her) decision will stand for eternity…

 

Moreover, such a position is clearly undefendable, since if one is willing to understand whatever (s)he wants from the Bible (for example “adjusting” it to current formal paradigms), then what could be the purpose of reading the Bible at all?

 

 

    then it's pretty easy for them to merge both world views together.   

 

Unfortunately I have to agree.

 

 

     If you're going to ask for evidence, then summarily dismiss it without so much of a reason, perhaps we should both save our time, drop the discussion, and agree to disagree.  

 

If you only consider evidence how you’d like it, then why are you surprised that I do the same? And by the way, since I’m the one excluding imagination (you know, what you can’t directly observe: macroevolution) from this game, then I’m the one most probably right and you the one most probably wrong…

 

 

  What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open?      

 

That discussion was not about Earth…

[RobbyPants]

 

Genesis 1 has the world created in six days, with man and woman crated simultaneously after the animals. In Genesis 2, God creates man, then the plants and animals, and finally woman.

 

For the most part it’s the same account. Only that Genesis 2 gives more detail to the general Creation and also some things are now created differently (not man, neither woman) - but it regards only the Garden of Eden.

 

They pretty much are, other than the differing order listed for when Adam, Eve, and the plants and animals were created. 

 

 

 

If a Christian is willing to accept those stories as metaphorical,

 

That’s the problem – right there. In the end one cannot believe both in men and in God. He (she) has to choose. One cannot have two masters. And his (her) decision will stand for eternity…

 

Moreover, such a position is clearly undefendable, since if one is willing to understand whatever (s)he wants from the Bible (for example “adjusting” it to current formal paradigms), then what could be the purpose of reading the Bible at all?

 

Well, they can, they just can't do it with a literal interpretation of the Bible. A lot of Christians feel some amount of the Bible is metaphorical on some level or another. Believing that the Bible must be interpreted literally is just an assumption that some Christians make (and take very seriously; I'm not making light of it).

As for it being indefensible, I disagree. The only things that say the Bible needs to be interpreted literally are:

• The Bible (which is circular reasoning), and
• People, assuming it's meant to be taken literally.

As for why a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible is literal would still read it, I don't have any good answers for you, as I'm no longer Christian. I'm sure the reasons are quite varied, depending on who you ask. My wife feels she sees God in the Bible, and likes reading the words of people who felt moved to record their testimonies of faith.

For others, it could be as simple as they identify as Christian, and cognitive dissonance keeps them from accepting all parts of the Bible literally, and this is how they reconcile it. If you want a "good" answer, you'd have to directly ask people who hold that world view. I'm somewhat speculating at this point.

 

 

 

If you're going to ask for evidence, then summarily dismiss it without so much of a reason, perhaps we should both save our time, drop the discussion, and agree to disagree.

 

If you only consider evidence how you’d like it, then why are you surprised that I do the same? And by the way, since I’m the one excluding imagination (you know, what you can’t directly observe: macroevolution) from this game, then I’m the one most probably right and you the one most probably wrong…

 

So, we'll chalk this one up as agree to disagree, and move on then, huh? 

 

 

 

What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open?

 

That discussion was not about Earth…

 

You didn't answer either question. Regardless of whether or not you feel the discussion of evolution is about the Earth or the universe:

• What type of system is the earth? Isolated/Closed/Open?
• Is it possible to discuss thermodynamics in a sub-system (as it pertains specifically to that sub-system) that is Open or Closed, even if it is inside a larger, isolated sub-system? If not, why not?

Edited September 4, 2013 by RobbyPants

[neil_]

   They pretty much are, other than the differing order listed for when Adam, Eve, and the plants and animals were created.  

 

There is no contradiction. Some plants and some animals were created in the Garden of Eden (some even from different material than in the general Creation from Genesis 1). But again, that regards the Garden of Eden only.

 

Some Creationists (Hovind, for example) claim that God did that even in front of man (Adam), so that he could see who the Creator is. In support of that comes the fact that the serpent went to tempt Eve, not Adam. Other than that, I couldn’t find any arguments for this thesis. Sounds good, but I don’t know if it’s really true.

 

 

  Well, they can, they just can't do it with a literal interpretation of the Bible.     

 

There is no “literal interpretation” of the Bible. Either it’s literal, or it’s interpreted – to mean whatever you’d like it to mean.

 

As a general idea, people who distort the literal Bible do that because they find differences between what the Bible says and what the mainstream paradigms say.

 

For example, the cosmic space. Every single student in the world learns that the cosmic space is empty (void) – there is nothing in the interstellar space. On the other hand, the Bible says, for example in Job, that what’s out there is rather solid.

 

At this point, all Christians would distort the Bible (they, instead, would never question the validity of what they have been taught in schools; because man can never get it wrong, while God can get it wrong many times, right?). So they would say that Job 37:18 (sky “hard as a mirror”) is only a metaphor and it couldn’t possibly be literal.

 

 

But is that how the universe really is, or is it just another empty claim in the endless series of mainstream claims?

 

Well… (I will quote a Nobel laureate in physics, because I’m sure if I’d quote anyone lower than that you’d simply dismiss them):

 

“Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part.”
 

The Bible is right – yet again. And mainstream paradigms are proven wrong – yet again…

 

So different is the real universe from the universe taught in schools that the quoted fellow, Robert Laughlin, had to name his book:  “A different universe: reinventing physics from the bottom down”.

 

Bottom line: science, the real science (science with no hidden agenda) has nothing against a literal Bible. Only the evolution (which is not science) has everything to do against the Bible – because that’s why it was conceived: to provide an “escape” from God (an exclusively naturalistic view of things).

 

You can find a more extensive quote from Laughlin’s book here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

 

The extreme irony is that, even though the claim that the cosmic (interstellar) space is empty (void) has never left the schools (as I’m sure anyone in this forum can testify), mainstream itself claims differently – in fact, SO DIFFERENTLY. Not only the empty space is not empty, but what’s out there is actually, in the mainstream cosmic paradigm, 95% of the entire universe. How about that…

 

 

  The only things that say the Bible needs to be interpreted literally are:

1. The Bible (which is circular reasoning)    

That’s really enough – no need for other reasons at all. If one is going to believe the Bible, then (s)he should obviously believe the Bible on how the Bible (and not other people) says it should be believed.

 

And no, it’s no circular reasoning at all. For example, you use DNA to understand DNA, don’t you?

 

 

   If you want a "good" answer, you'd have to directly ask people who hold that world view.  

 

No, I wouldn’t. I already know why. Even better than them…

 

 

  So, we'll chalk this one up as agree to disagree, and move on then, huh?    

 

Your problem isn’t that we two disagree. You should have expected that form the start, since I’m a Creationist and you an evolutionist. Your problem is that evolutionists themselves disagree between themselves (and with you).

 

How many quotes from hardcore evolutionists do you want me to give you? A few examples:

 

 

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."

John Adler, John Carey, “Is Man a Subtle Accident”, Newsweek, Nov. 3, 1980, p. 95


“One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a creator."

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer Anthropology, Sydney University, Quadrant, Oct. 1982, page 44


"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." 

Mark Ridley, Oxford Univ., “Who doubts evolution?”, New Scientist, 25 June 1981, p. 831


"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition."

D.S. Woodroff, University of CA, San Diego, Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716
 

"A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"

Tom Kemp, Oxford, New Scientist, Dec.5 1985, p. 67
 

 

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."

J. E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51

 

"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found - yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

David M. Raup, Univ. of Chicago, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289
 

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.... The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation..."

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge Univ., “The blind watchmaker”, 1986


“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…”

professor Jerome Lejeune, famous geneticist, lecture in Paris, March 17, 1985


"As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."

William R. Fix, “The Bone Pedlars”, New York, 1984, p.150

 

 

 

 

Indeed, evolution is such a cool theory (??), if only there could be some evidence for it…

 

Now you tell me, are those quotes enough, or do you want more?

 

I find it curious that ordinary evolutionists don’t really know what top evolutionists say in their few moments of honesty…

 

 

 You didn't answer either question.   

 

I didn’t. And I’m still not. Simply because it was not my argument.