Facts Found From Creation Science

[dfnj]

Yours in atheist science while I refer to creation science. However, creation science follows the SLOT while evolution and atheist science states the opposite in regards to entropy. That gives creation science the upper hand. One can hypothesize as much as they want based on heuristics to fit their worldview, but it doesn't make it true like with your luca cell or life arising from primordial soup. OTOH what creation science has been basing their science on hasn't changed. Yet, general science ends up backing up up what they were saying in the first place.

I didn't say I was disproving evolution. What I said was the sun and the earth was still increasing entropy as per the SLOT and not reducing it as claimed by evolutionists. AFAIK no system that opposed the SLOT has panned out. This is how science works. It doesn't offer proof or disproof.

People studying the sun and publishing papers on how the sun works do not see themselves as "evolutionists" or "atheists". All the additional interpretations and meanings you are attributing to the science is coming from your subjective judgments. Your interpretations are not the only ones.

The purpose of science is not to disprove creationism. Science is not "atheist science". Science is the study of nature and coming up with language to represent nature's behaviors and then creating measurement devices to confirm nature's behaviors. There is nothing in science to suggest it has a purpose or an agenda. It is just an activity done a certain way to understand how nature behaves.

Now if the idea of evolution is so offensive to you why does it matter? And what is "creation science" ? There is no such thing. There is just science. Please explain to me what types of measurements of reality can be associate with each type. This is really nonsense. Science is indifferent to how the data is interpreted. Science is just "how" nature behaves not "why".

 

[dfnj]

Creation science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that claims to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reexplain the scientific facts,[2] theories and scientific paradigms about geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics.[8]

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific, view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[9][10] Creation science is a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[11][12][13] It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly,[14] and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[15]

Creation science began in the 1960s, as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[16] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[17] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000–10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[18] As a result, creation science also challenges the commonly accepted geologic and astrophysical theories for the age and origins of the Earth and Universe, which creationists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[16] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution."

Creation science - Wikipedia

 

[dfnj]

"9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

 

[james bond]

Good. And why can there be an increase of complexity in the formation of a snowflake (a local decrease in entropy) and still not violate the SLOT?

By the way, I was not thinking of a snowflake when I asked this, although it works. I was thinking of water freezing into ice.

It's because of the heat flow that causes the patterns in snowflakes. The properties of water when it changes forms from ice to liquid to steam is easier to see on the stove and water in a pot as it takes time and temperature equilibrium to reach the next state. When ice or snowflakes form, it's this process in reverse and what causes the crystallization is the heat flow in reverse.

Here is the evidence of making snow.

Yet, this is still an INCREASE in entropy even due to the localization and open system of the earth and sun because it is an example of heat flowing as the Siberian cold is the severe reduction of heat. Thus, the formation of complex patterns in snowflakes isn't like evolution, it's more like basic science in keeping with the SLOT.

 

[james bond]

Creation science - Wikipedia

Using biased wikipedia does not give one the correct answers in regards to creation science because their editors are atheists. Remember atheists are usually wrong. I'd prefer to use conservadia in this case.

Creation science - Conservapedia

Something in-between which I'm willing to accept is Britannica, but it's not complete.

creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

 

[james bond]

"9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

You're stating things that I haven't said such as, "Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa."

Again, snowflakes formation are caused by the heat flow in reverse. It is easier to experiment to show heat flow from ice into steam. How does heat flow when we heat ice into water into steam? The temperature of the ice remains at below 32 degrees F while it is ice. Then it remains at above 32 degrees F and below 100 degrees F while it is liquid (still being heated on stove). Finally, it remains 100 degrees F or more when it turns into steam. If one reverses this process, then that is how crystallization occurs and it still shows a system where entropy is INCREASING not decreasing. Thus, if evolution states that the formation of snowflakes is a system of decreasing entropy, then it does not happen with the formation of a snowflake despite it's bogus argument of complexity. The same with your argument in the last paragraph despite the "parts of the system to decrease in entropy." It is still increasing in entropy all the way and following the SLOT. The open system does not matter nor does it being localized or being part of a system.

 

[sayak83]

Photosynthesis shows heat being processed from the sun. Just because it is takes heat energy from the sun does not mean that it REDUCES entropy. Sunlight increases entropy more often by aiding in decomposition. Think about your window blinds getting darker and your curtains fading from being exposed to sunlight. Thus, atheists claiming that the sun reduces entropy in order to validate evolution are wrong.

As for your apes as our common ancestor explanation, it is lacking. You said apes are not bipedal when the whole point made by people like Donald Johanson was this was the first sign of their evolution.

Yes. Photosynthesis process increases entropy overall. So what is the problem?

An animal that is between forest ape and bipedal man will be partially bipedal while retaining some tree climbing abilities. Many such fossils exist. Do you want to know about them?

 

[dfnj]

Thus, if evolution states that the formation of snowflakes is a system of decreasing entropy, then it does not happen with the formation of a snowflake despite it's bogus argument of complexity. The same with your argument in the last paragraph despite the "parts of the system to decrease in entropy." It is still increasing in entropy all the way and following the SLOT. The open system does not matter nor does it being localized or being part of a system.

I do appreciate your Herculean efforts here. And I may be so closed minded I am missing your points. I'm trying, but nothing you say is convincing me of anything. But I'm trying so please be patient.

I don't know what evolution states if anything at all about snowflakes. Just consider this paragraph:

"More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

What is bad science here? What is wrong with this view? The sun is adding energy to the system. What is wrong with the sentences, "Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials" ?

 

[Darkstorn]

Using biased wikipedia

Remember atheists are usually wrong.

I'd prefer to use conservadia in this case.

Creation science - Conservapedia

Funny JB quotes Vol. 2.

But just for the record, you are trying to present an argument here. So stop showing us how we should NOT take anything you say seriously.

Poe.

 

[ChristineM]

Ha ha. First, you're the one who does not know enough because of the one thing you left out is the main measurement of entropy -- heat. What do you think is causing the disorder? It's the heat being transferred from hot spot to cold, i.e. increasing entropy, or remaining in equilibrium, in a "closed" system. This is the SLOT. The complex calculations are done to measure how evenly the distribution of "heat" is.

If the heat flows from a cold spot to hot, then entropy is decreasing. This is what evolution is stating happens in an open system such as the sun and the earth. For example, a candle will not start to burn by itself. When we add some heat from a lighter or match it will start to burn. Or water won't start cooking on it's own. However, if we put it in a pot and on the stove, then we can get it cooking. In these cases, the total entropy of the system has increased, SLOT again, but locally, the candle or water starting to boil in a pot, it has decreased.

Second, we're not talking about educating anyone, but who's right in the case of the increasing entropy in the "universe," i.e. a creation FACT, or having a system such as evolution work against the SLOT. The creation scientists are right because evolution would have to move to an increasing level of ordered distribution of heat while the universe is increasing in entropy or disorder as you stated, i.e. moving to an uneven distribution of heat. Again, I have not seen a system that works successfully against SLOT.

As I pointed out, lightning does not create life from primordial soup. This is proved by experiment. Moreover, life can't be created by the sun and photosynthesis. Life can only come from life as Jesus taught. The atheist scientists failed at creating life. Neither does life transform into another whole different class of species by the sun. Thus, you still haven't explained how evolution can work when we have increased entropy. Even the earth as an open system cannot violate the SLOT and increasing entropy.

Heat is energy so yes, its you who doesn't know.

I quoted text the definition, you gave stories of local heat transfer. Guesswork about your personal belief in a creator.

Please define your quoted slot.

Wrong. The increase in entropy aids heat transfer, evolution is a consiquence of entropy,not the other way round as your creation meddler claims.

Again define slot


And then you drop into straw man mode. What has lightning to do with entropy?

Nope its not a proved experiment anyway. Please provide a link to a peer reviewed paper that makes such a sweeping claim. As for the rest of the creationist waffle... Lol. As for your accusation, that was not the question or intention. What was the intention was to show evolution os predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, which i both proved id valid and proved you don't understand

 

[dfnj]

What was the intention was to show evolution os predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, which i both proved id valid and proved you don't understand

You have to give some credit to JB for even trying but I do not think he is thinking right. We have to be careful with "prove you don't understand" type thinking. He certainly thinks differently. What I'd like to see in this discussion is this is what we know nature is doing separated from what it means in terms of creationism. I don't think we are even agreeing on what or how nature is behaving.

I'm a pretty strong proponent of evolution. Everything I've ever read or experienced confirms it makes the most sense in explaining the diversity of life we have on this planet. You just can't ignore the evidence. There's just too much supporting the theory of evolution.

Maybe JB will convince me otherwise. But so far everything he says as conclusions doesn't seem to me to follow from his assertions. And I'm not even sure his assertions are true. So either he is not explaining his assertions well enough or I am too stupid to understand what he is saying.

 

[ChristineM]

You have to give some credit to JB for even trying but I do not think he is thinking right. We have to be careful with "prove you don't understand" type thinking. He certainly thinks differently. What I'd like to see in this discussion is this is what we know nature is doing separated from what it means in terms of creationism. I don't think we are even agreeing on what or how nature is behaving.

I'm a pretty strong proponent of evolution. Everything I've ever read or experienced confirms it makes the most sense in explaining the diversity of life we have on this planet. You just can't ignore the evidence. There's just too much supporting the theory of evolution.

Maybe JB will convince me otherwise. But so far everything he says as conclusions doesn't seem to me to follow from his assertions. And I'm not even sure his assertions are true. So either he is not explaining his assertions well enough or I am too stupid to understand what he is saying.

I believe it's a genuine mental blockage. He has been taught one way and one way only therefore such as he 2nd law of thermodynamics and consiquently, evolution appear to be anathema to him.

 

[dfnj]

If you want to have your mind blown take a look at this video and the experiments done with acetabularia. How the plant regenerates without a nucleus is fascinating!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do appreciate your Herculean efforts here. And I may be so closed minded I am missing your points. I'm trying, but nothing you say is convincing me of anything. But I'm trying so please be patient.

I don't know what evolution states if anything at all about snowflakes. Just consider this paragraph:

"More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials."

What is bad science here? What is wrong with this view? The sun is adding energy to the system. What is wrong with the sentences, "Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials" ?

Entropy

1. PHYSICS
   a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2. 2.
   lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
   synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse; More

There is a distinction to be made in the definitions

A practical example; if we knock down a brick wall, we crumble, degrade, degenerate a form while at the same time making it more complex.

The pile of bricks is more complex in form than the wall yes? Yet the simple wall is more difficult to account for by chance..


So too with life, turning the pile into the wall is working against entropy in the 2nd sense, specified information is required, must be introduced to do so

 

[Subduction Zone]

Photosynthesis shows heat being processed from the sun. Just because it is takes heat energy from the sun does not mean that it REDUCES entropy. Sunlight increases entropy more often by aiding in decomposition. Think about your window blinds getting darker and your curtains fading from being exposed to sunlight. Thus, atheists claiming that the sun reduces entropy in order to validate evolution are wrong.

As for your apes as our common ancestor explanation, it is lacking. You said apes are not bipedal when the whole point made by people like Donald Johanson was this was the first sign of their evolution.

What!? No, that is not what atheists or scientists claim at all. Seriously several people are trying to help you with your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Why are you not listening?

 

[dfnj]

What!? No, that is not what atheists or scientists claim at all. Seriously several people are trying to help you with your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Why are you not listening?

I think the form of his argument is the problem also. I would prefer he just make assertions about nature's behavior. Let's agree that is what is happening. And then after we can agree on the evidence, lets have civil conversation as to what the evidence means. But jumping right into what the evidence means kind of suggests he's trying to prove his own prejudice.

One of the best things I've ever heard a scientist say is, "make me a liar". I think you cannot be emotional attached. From science perspective, you let the evidence speak for itself. Of course there's a lot of subjective interpretation as to what the evidence means or what is the "best" theory to represent the evidence. But that is a different kind of conversation. I think JB is determined to say something meaningful but I'm just not sure I follow his reasoning. I'm trying to be open minded without sounding disrespectful but it is difficult.

 

[Polymath257]

It's because of the heat flow that causes the patterns in snowflakes. The properties of water when it changes forms from ice to liquid to steam is easier to see on the stove and water in a pot as it takes time and temperature equilibrium to reach the next state. When ice or snowflakes form, it's this process in reverse and what causes the crystallization is the heat flow in reverse.

Here is the evidence of making snow.

Yet, this is still an INCREASE in entropy even due to the localization and open system of the earth and sun because it is an example of heat flowing as the Siberian cold is the severe reduction of heat. Thus, the formation of complex patterns in snowflakes isn't like evolution, it's more like basic science in keeping with the SLOT.

OK, good. Now what is the overall heat flow over the course of evolution of a species?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Greed or a prestigious appointment as in The Piltdown Man, but I think I'm still waiting for the answer to my question where is the real one if evolution does happen? There is no missing link and why do we still have apes and humans, but no ape-human? Why is bipedalism an advantage when running on fours and swinging through trees is more advantageous? Why don't apes walk today? Paleontology is one o the areas of science that creos roll their eyeballs at evos . And I'm serious when I say why do you subscribe to pseudoscientific racism from the 1800s to say Africans came from apes? Why is the white man at the top of the evolutionary chart?

One example of why evolution contradicts entropy in biology is with photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the source of food for all living plants and animals. Evos say we had primordial soup to an increasingly higher state of order, complexity and information -- a human. AFAIK, everything that went against the SLOT has failed so why would evolution be the one system that is different?

Why are you asking the same questions over and over? They've been answered so many times, it's not even funny.

 

[Polymath257]

You're stating things that I haven't said such as, "Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa."

Again, snowflakes formation are caused by the heat flow in reverse. It is easier to experiment to show heat flow from ice into steam. How does heat flow when we heat ice into water into steam? The temperature of the ice remains at below 32 degrees F while it is ice. Then it remains at above 32 degrees F and below 100 degrees F while it is liquid (still being heated on stove). Finally, it remains 100 degrees F or more when it turns into steam. If one reverses this process, then that is how crystallization occurs and it still shows a system where entropy is INCREASING not decreasing. Thus, if evolution states that the formation of snowflakes is a system of decreasing entropy, then it does not happen with the formation of a snowflake despite it's bogus argument of complexity. The same with your argument in the last paragraph despite the "parts of the system to decrease in entropy." It is still increasing in entropy all the way and following the SLOT. The open system does not matter nor does it being localized or being part of a system.

No. When water freezes or when steam condenses, the entropy of the *water* does, in fact, decrease. This is trivially seen with the equation dS=dq/T. But because of the heat given off to the environment, the overall entropy of the system plus the environment increases.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Using biased wikipedia does not give one the correct answers in regards to creation science because their editors are atheists. Remember atheists are usually wrong. I'd prefer to use conservadia in this case.

Creation science - Conservapedia

Something in-between which I'm willing to accept is Britannica, but it's not complete.

creationism | Definitions, History, & Facts

You don't think that something called Conservapedia is biased in a certain direction?