Thermodynamics is yet another scientific topic that creationists seem to get really wrong. They can’t seem to understand that adding energy into a system allows for negative entropy. It is also rather strange that they think an intelligence can violate the laws of thermodynamics at will. They also think that the laws of thermodynamics prevents a complex human evolving from a single celled ancestor, yet they have no problem with the a human developing from a single cell over a nine month gestation period. Why one violates the laws of thermodynamics and the other does not seems to be a mystery to most creationists.
Denial isn’t an argument. Please explain why these are not valid scientific predictions.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:199, topic:36621”]
How would you test your statement? Does the sun not shine on corpses too?
[/quote]
I would test my statement by measuring the temperature of the Earth at different places. Since the Earth is 4.5 billion years old there has been plenty of time for temperature to even out across the globe. If the Sun is driving an increase in thermodynamic order then I should find obvious evidence of temperature disequilibrium across the Earth, and that is exactly what we find. The equator is much hotter than the poles, a confirmation that the Sun is driving negative entropy on the Earth.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:199, topic:36621”]
In setting up the whole process. In addition, DNA is not essence of life - http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/ . Also, how come you’re not triggered by all the redox processes in biology?
[/quote]
Evidence for these claims, please.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:199, topic:36621”]
Nah. That’s just circular logic - presupose a link and then use that “link” to demonstrate the link.
[/quote]
We aren’t presupposing transitional fossils. We have them. They are real.
2 Likes
The phenotype would relate to the permeability of the membranes. A genetic disorder could be the root cause but the genetic disorder is not the phenotype. The tightness the a link between a particular gene and a trait (phenotypic) doesn’t matter with respect to those definitions.
NonlinORg wrote:
Huh? Point 4 refers to points 2. and 3. None of those mentions genes.
Point 2 [emphasis mine]:
“2. There is no direct and exclusive link between survivability and phenotype (and genotype).”
What I had written:
QED to my earlier comments.
Again.
For the purposes of this mini-discussion, I need to draw a line between:
“answers to your questions that apply to me personally”
vs.
“categorical answers to your questions that apply to Theists generally”.
Since you and I have already gone around at least 1.5 times on the former question, I will (for now at least) offer answers that are generically true for the Religious.
.
.
.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gbrooks9:
I use “evidence” to mean information to lead to a verdict.
Your response:
And what is that information? How do you determine what is and isn’t information?
Answer: Any information that lends to greater confidence in my “wager” that ther is a God. As you can imagine, determining what is information is the easy part. Everything under the canopy of Heaven is information! What you struggle with is the categories of information and how those categories are used.
.
.
.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gbrooks9:
This is the definition I get from a Google search:
“the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
Your response:
It would seem that you are using a different definition than most people.
Answer: I wish you could have seen my big grin when I read your cocky response! Are you really so bold as to dismiss a dictionary definition (and a relatively non-controversial one, at that!)? Mr. T, please remember, we are discussing the word “evidence”, not the word “proof”.
.
.
.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gbrooks9:
I call all sorts of things “evidence” that you rejected because it wasn’t what you call evidence.
Your response:
I would agree that you would need to change the meanings of words in order to support your argument.
Answer: Another big grin! This time, you are so bold as to decide - - on my behalf and for me - - what evidence will be allowed to “support [my] argument”.
One: Your definition is hardly relevant when applying my reasoning to my own state of mind.
Two: Your definition, if if rejects a perfectly unbiased dictionary definition, becomes disqualified on the grounds of bias.
While I will leave the gravesite of the Reverend (may he rest in peace) undisturbed, I cannot abandon his foundational insight.
Without Bayes Theorem, there is no standard model in particle physics.
Without Bayes Theorem, there is no evidence for black holes in astronomy.
Without Bayes Theorem, there is no evidence for the chemical equation 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O
Biology, like the other scientific disciplines, relies on Bayes Theorem to build foundational theories–which in the case of biology is primarily the theory of evolution. All of your attacks on evolution, on the other hand, rely on non-Bayesian arguments.
Given the success of Bayes Theorem throughout the realm of modern science, I will continue to rely on it, thank you.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
That kicks the can down the road to “what type of information lends greater confidence?”.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:208, topic:36621”]
Answer: I wish you could have seen my big grin when I read your cocky response! Are you really so bold as to dismiss a dictionary definition (and a relatively non-controversial one, at that!)? Mr. T, please remember, we are discussing the word “evidence”, not the word “proof”.
[/quote]
I never used the word proof, so I don’t see the problem. The definition used the words “true or valid”, so I am not asking for proof. Validity allows for reasonable doubt and doesn’t require absolute proof.
What I was trying to get at is that you seemed to be defining evidence as anything and everything, even it wasn’t even related to the conclusion at hand. All I was trying to do is define evidence so that it was at least relevant to the conclusion.
Again, personal definitions aren’t that helpful. When words can mean whatever you want whenever you want it makes discussions like these difficult.
How can you know they weren’t when you now claim you have no access to the evidence? Would not knowing whether predictions were accurate depend entirely on you not only having access, but understanding the evidence?
In response to
You offered Rogue data fell tree of life
but there is no evidence there, just quoting words.
So how can you claim to know evidence very well, then later claim to have no access to that same set of evidence?
And I should add that we both know that you have free, unlimited access to the DNA and protein sequence evidence.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:178, topic:36621”]
I am sure that at least some of you here will admit that any objective opportunity for me in all this is IF I am presented with both sides, live.
[/quote]I disagree. This is not a debate. I have pointed out that you have free, unlimited access to the evidence and have offered to show you how to analyse it. You keep claiming that your access does not exist, but you claimed the opposite 13 days past, and you deny that you have the ability to do any analysis for yourself. [quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:178, topic:36621”]
I think that you ought to be as sure that I will defend my pre-commitments as carefully and committed-ly as any on your side has ever defended that of your side.
[/quote]There is another incorrect claim. You are refusing to defend your pre-commitments. My position on common descent, which your citation denied, is not based on pre-commitments. It is based on evidence, some of which I have produced with my own hands.
So I hope you can see how silly your attempt to withdraw from evidence and instead act like a judge of a debate is.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:178, topic:36621”]
So I presume that you grant that I am telling the truth when I say that I have no me-my-own-first-personal conscious articulate access to microbiology. (((We all, I presume, agree that we each are made up of the micro, but that we also all recognize that that does not constitute the empirical articulation of the micro (much less the degree of that articulation as currently exists among its primary researchers.)))
[/quote]
That’s not what microbiology is. Microbiology is the study of microorganisms, especially infectious ones and their effects on large organisms.
2 Likes
NN[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:210, topic:36621”]
That kicks the can down the road to “what type of information lends greater confidence?”.
[/quote]
As I said: any kind of information.
-
Formal & Anecdotal data about NDE (Near Death Experiences), especially those that convey a reduction in fear or anxiety about the man or woman’s inevitable demise;
-
Death-Bed Visions - especially those inconsistent with the surrounding culture;
-
Anecdotal information about Out of Body Experiences and Formal studies on pharmaceutically induced experiences that are described as “Out of Body”;
-
Information extracted from about 1% of Ghost Stories;
-
Information extracted from case studies of 0.1% of Medium/Psychic reports.
I’m not trying to make an exhaustive list, so I’m not going to attempt to list any more types of information. But I did find a list of 52 categories of NDE’s:
.
Sure, some of the events discussed are pretty equivocable, but it’s all part of a massive corpus of what, to me, is an aggregate of information, ranging from low quality to high quality. But before I end my personal comments, let me conclude that I fully expect you to get up on your horse (20 hands high), and tell me that each of these sub-categories of case studies and informal reportage isn’t information. To which I will laugh qietly to myself. Of course it’s information.
Or you might opt to categorize it as terrible information. To which I will say, some of it is - - wihtout a doubt - - terrible information. But in the intersection of these case histories and other more formal research projects, I find information - - beyond my ability to control - - that comforts me, gives me optimism, and seems reasonable possibly… all at the same time:
01: People have NDEs while they are brain dead ;
www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a01
02: Out-of-body perception during NDEs have been verified ;
www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a02
and many more are listed there.
Origin
Early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n-) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ manoeuvre in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.
From Latin ēvolvere, present active infinitive of ēvolvō (“unroll, unfold”)
Just because to some a word is limited to their perception does not limit others to use it in it’s original perspective.
Consider that to the majority of “brights” the term supernatural means the equivalent of magic/irrational. If you accept the misinterpretation of language by others you lose the right to argue based on logical coherence but accept majority opinion - a questionable path to truth.
That’s funny. What I said was the following:
In biology, evolution means “a change in allele frequencies in a population.” This is one of the most-used definitions, at least by scientists.
By golly, I thought we were talking about biology.
1 Like
No. Nothing follows from it.
Wrong topic.
And you “keep saying things like this without any evidence. This demonstrates you’re unable to address the facts.”
So, why don’t you add energy and do whatever you must to demonstrate abiogenesis …or at least transmutate some organism into another to demonstrate “evolution”?
The topic is biology and in particular Dobzhansky’s illogical statement.
You are presupposing those fossils are linked with each other and with current organisms.
So your answer to “2. There is no direct and exclusive link between survivability and phenotype (and genotype).” is Yes or No? You sound like ‘Yes’ meaning “There is a link but not direct and exclusive” - granted, this is a bit confusing to which you add by not responding Yes or No.
What about 3. Natural Selection is described as “the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype”? Can’t say ‘Yes’ to this too (not my definition!)
Are you serious? A → B ->C doesn’t mean non-C → non-B ->non-A. I also strongly dispute that your C (evolution) is at all tied to your B (biology).
1 Like
That is false, and you are not addressing the issue. When presented with several pages of facts, you simply denied that they were facts. It’s people like you who helped push me towards acceptance of evolution. You have absolutely no answers and all you do is scream at people.
1 Like
Since the discussion has basically turned into people telling each other that they are not discussing anything, I think we are done here. If anyone thinks of something of substance to say, feel free to respond in a new topic.
6 Likes