Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[hammer01 29]

The Adam and Eve "inconsistency" of the Bible is not an inconsistency at all. When we know that a Creative Force must have existed to create the universe, that is all we can say about the creation. We cannot say in what manner he created the universe, because while it was being created there was none but the Creative Force to observe it. The story surrounding Adam and Eve is perfectly possible. Any actions that the Creative Force takes meddling with His creation don't have to follow the otherwise standard laws of the universe, because the Force Itself isn't even a part of the universe. The supposed inconsistencies with the Adam and Eve story are none.

Ohhh... so that's what you meant.... well what this guy said!

[Jistuma 1996]

The earth is NOT an open system which only receives energy, it releaces energy into the suroundings as well.

You are wrong about the second law, so stop using it. I will not be refuting 5 paragraphs when in your first paragraph you already say wrong things:

"The earth receiving energy from the sun naturally requires a change in energy, and thus this process, the absorption of energy by the earth, INCREASES entropy."

You do know that the earth LOSES energy into the suroundings as well? The entropy of earth stays about the same, with a little influx up and down throughout the times. STOP saying that the second law of thermaldynamics impossibilitates evolution.

[hammer01 29]

Far more energy is coming into earth than is going out.... otherwise earth would be a giant ice-ball...

[Lago 2572]

Far more energy is coming into earth than is going out.... otherwise earth would be a giant ice-ball...

Courtesy of the sun. A lot of that solar energy gets locked up in compounds such as coal. Coal is a very ordered thing made from disordered things by throwing enough energy at it. (a vast oversimplification, I'll admit, but true).
 

Tell that to somebody over forty. Life cannot sustain order for itself
forever. In fact, less orderly life forms have an easier time preserving
themselves than do more orderly life forms such as Humans. If you
really believe life is always getting more orderly, you can tell that to
your 50-year-old parents. (I jest :D)

You're confusing ordered and complex. Humans age and die because they become damaged and homeostasis breaks down. That is not because of the laws of physics but because of wear and tear. Some jellyfish do though. A human continues to make lower entropy structures from food (like protein) for its entire life.
 

Your post indicates that you do not, in fact, understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

"This means there is an inherent imbalance as the universe progresses to a state of total entropy."

Total entropy (heat death) is the most stable, balanced state possible, with no energy gradients. Chemically, order is unstable.

"Life consumes energy disproportionately to the amount it expends on things other than itself."

The energy life needs comes from a certain collosal yellow fusion reactor in the sky.

"More specifically, the approach taken
by evolutionists to explain the mutation of genes always involves some
form of energy transfer into the DNA, thus making the DNA have a
pronounced spike in disorder."

DNA is just an incredibly large organic molecule. It can be modified by most chemical reaction mechanisms. Pretty much any organic molecule can be synthesised in a laboratory with the correct reagents and sufficient knowledge of its functional groups. For example, ethanol and an oxidising agent will produce ethanal (and a few other products). Ethanal and a reducing agent will produce ethanol. In terms of entropy, ethanal and ethanol aren't that different, but the chemical difference is huge.

 

"This, as was stated earlier, means that only de-evolution is possible. Evolution CANNOT happen."

What's the difference? Devolving and evolving are subjective. What matters is that some of the DNA has changed. For example, say, the gene responsible for melanin gets FUBAR by a gamma photon. You get a human with paler skin. In a hot climate, this means less protection from the sun, and they probably die of skin cancer like your industrial revolution moths. But up north, where it's colder, the extra sun absorption means this pale human's offspring aren't getting rickets.

Say the gene responsible for hair colour in a bear gets FUBAR. You get a white bear. Terrible if you're in the jungle, devolution for certain. But if that happened say, near the north pole...

"Earth, though, happens to be gaining disorder at the expense of the sun. "

The Sun is becoming more disordered at an atomic level, that is to say, the energy gradients are evening out. The ball is falling out of the air to the ground. That energy increases energy gradients in the

It may be more helpful for you to look at it in terms of stability rather than 'chaos'. Entropy is not chaos exactly, a state of entropy is more stable than a lack of it. Entropy is a difficult, rather abstract and oft misunderstood concept.

"Even life acts, in a way, like earth, and gains disorder at the expense of its surroundings."

Life becomes more ordered at the 'expense' (by which I believe you mean increase in entropy) of its surroundings. When water freezes, it becomes more ordered, and the heat it gives off makes the air around it less ordered.

 

"(as it is harvesting the energy, and thus entropy, from its surroundings)"

And this shows a severe misunderstanding of chemistry. This statement is simply wrong. An exothermic process (one that gives off energy to the surroundings) can result in a decrease in entropy. An example of this is the Haber Process, used to manufacture ammonia. Life gets its energy from exothermic processes such as the combustion of glucose.

 

Your posts continue to suggest that you do not understand the concept of entropy.

[Gemmylou 484]

Ladies and Gents, I'm going to ask you all to start respecting what each other is saying. This can be a very sensitive discussion and you are all in an all out flame. 

 Any flame will receive an instant warn.

 

You have all been warned. 

[The Best Basileus 97]

"You do know that the earth LOSES energy into the suroundings as well? The entropy of earth stays about the same, with a little influx up and down throughout the times. STOP saying that the second law of thermaldynamics impossibilitates evolution."

 

Impossibilitates isn't a word :)

 

Anyway, since the earth is gaining and losing energy, and thus entropy, and every thermodynamic process increases entropy more than it should (like, if I expect to gain 3 entropy units (there are none, but for the sake of the example) in a process, I will actuall gain 4. If expect to lose 2 entropy units, I will actually lose 1). Thus the earth is losing order at a pretty much constant rate, so no, the entropy does not stay the same. It really just decreases. (The function of order is not a state function. If it took the earth any time at all to reach its present thermodynamic state, the amount of order associated with the temperature today will be less than the same temperature in the past.) So yes, I do understand the Second law, and this is how it works.

[Jistuma 1996]

Far more energy is coming into earth than is going out.... otherwise earth would be a giant ice-ball...

If more energy enters, it becomes a fireball, if more energy goes out, it becomes an ice-ball

There is a balance, and that is how the entropy of the earth stays the same.

[meg 1994]

 

I as well, this thread has gotten so far out of hand. This isn't the place for "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm right you're wrong, I'm right you're wrong." Debates. This is the place for you to be respectful of other people's opinions and post your own.

[hammer01 29]

If more energy enters, it becomes a fireball, if more energy goes out, it becomes an ice-ball

There is a balance, and that is how the entropy of the earth stays the same.

If thats so, then wouldnt the energy just cancel itself out and earth become semi-closed? or am I just not understanding...

 

EDIT: wait! I think i get it! If the same amount of energy coming into earth is going out, then earth would be a giant ice ball, because it would make it at 0 kelvin. it is clear that the earth is not at 0 kelvin, thus energy must be coming into earth constantly to make it the temperature it is.... am i making any sense here?

[The Best Basileus 97]

"The energy life needs comes from a certain collosal yellow fusion reactor in the sky."

 

It's just that the energy needed for mutations that comes from this colossal reactor in the sky causes a gain in disorder at every step of the way, from the sun to the earth to the plants to the animals to the bloodstream to the cells to the DNA. At every step of the process the entities gaining this energy are stimulated to decrease in order.

 

"What's the difference? Devolving and evolving are subjective. What matters is that some of the DNA has changed. For example, say, the gene responsible for melanin gets FUBAR by a gamma photon. You get a human with paler skin. In a hot climate, this means less protection from the sun, and they probably die of skin cancer like your industrial revolution moths. But up north, where it's colder, the extra sun absorption means this pale human's offspring aren't getting rickets.

Say the gene responsible for hair colour in a bear gets FUBAR. You get a white bear. Terrible if you're in the jungle, devolution for certain. But if that happened say, near the north pole..."

 

Every one of these mutations causes harm to the species, making it inferior, making it die off. This, in effect, supports the status quo in a species rather than supporting evolution.

 

"The Sun is becoming more disordered at an atomic level, that is to say, the energy gradients are evening out. The ball is falling out of the air to the ground. That energy increases energy gradients in the

It may be more helpful for you to look at it in terms of stability rather than 'chaos'. Entropy is not chaos exactly, a state of entropy is more stable than a lack of it. Entropy is a difficult, rather abstract and oft misunderstood concept."

 

Entropy can be understood to be disorder, though. The sun, by radiating energy, is bringing its atoms into a less agitated, and more ordered state. The constituent parts of the sun are decreasing in kinetic energy while increasing in order. Earth, however, is increasing in kinetic energy at the atomic level, thus more disorder. Life is increasing in disorder when absorbing energy. The reactions caused by errant radiation also cause disorder. While life attempts to maintain its present order, it cannot increase in order at all, much less due to random radiation causing mutations.

 

 

"When water freezes, it becomes more ordered, and the heat it gives off makes the air around it less ordered."

 

True statement. When the water thaws and increases to its original temperature, however, its entropy will be more than it originally was.

 

"And this shows a severe misunderstanding of chemistry. This statement is simply wrong. An exothermic process (one that gives off energy to the surroundings) can result in a decrease in entropy. An example of this is the Haber Process, used to manufacture ammonia. Life gets its energy from exothermic processes such as the combustion of glucose."

 

You just totally misunderstood what I said in your quote. I mentioned the harvesting of energy. You mentioned the emission of energy. We are talking about opposite processes. I totally agree with your statement, because your statement is describing the opposite effect of what I was describing. Thanks for increasing my credibility :D

 

I have shown using your own statements, in part, that I in fact DO understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thanks for that.

 

 

[The Best Basileus 97]

"

With regard to the "missing links" presented by ThePrrroman, no missing link has been shown to be it's own type of animal, but rather that it was a certain species of another already existing type. Archaeopteryx, for example, is fully bird. All of the toothed birds that used to exist could have contributed to the recessive trait for tooth growth among modern birds by interbreeding. The evolutionist merely interprets the evidence in a different way (one that happens to be thermodynamically impossible <3). The Neanderthal genes are prevalent among modern Europeans, meaning that they were a specific sub-species of the human type that had many recessive traits. These traits, however, do not seem to be inferior to those of modern humans, but rather to be, in many cases, superior. They had larger brains, stronger bones (meaning less chance of injury), and were slightly taller than the other humans of their time. Over all, it is clear to see that rather than sticking to the outdated theory of evolution when considering the evidence, it would be better to say that they were a collection of humans that had a collection of unique (probably recessive) traits.

 

Furthermore, the idea of evolution is rather hard to defend on the grounds of specified complexity. Let us examine the supposed evolution of the whale, since it has been brought up already. When Pakicetus decided to begin its mutation into Ambulocetus, it must have either become shorter, or grow webbed feet (although I have no idea how the paleontologists decide the feet were webbed, as skin doesn't stick around on fossils...). Either way, the hunting ability of the land-dwelling Pakicetus would have been impaired, and it would have remained ineffective at living amphibiously in the early stages of mutation. These mutations would have proved to be inferior, then, and would have killed off the first half-Ambulocetuses. No whales.

 

Consider the supposed evolution of the bird. The lungs of birds are extremely complex, and would have taken many mutations over thousands of years at the very least to produce. This leaves all the proto-birds stranded with insufficient lungs for flight, killing them off as they sit on the ground, easy target for predators. Consider their wings. The first winged raptor would have had no hands to use during hunting. The hands of these creatures were incredibly important, and with useless hands and useless wings, the new proto-bird would have died. Again. No birds.

 

Consider the evolution of the bat. The wings of the bat are considered to have evolved from the front hands of a shrew-like creature. The shrew's forelegs would have been perfect for scurrying until one of them had a mutation where his forelegs grew larger and webbed. This development would have inhibited the shrew's ability to run and would not have even helped the shrew to begin to learn to fly through gliding. The early proto-bats die. No bats.

 

Based on the very principles of natural selection which macroevolution claims to be based on, it cannot logically exist. Creatures undergoing macroevolution would have always been more unfit than their finely-tuned cohorts in their species, leaving them immediately vulnerable and soon dead. This is what is known of as specified complexity.

 

The Adam and Eve "inconsistency" of the Bible is not an inconsistency at all. When we know that a Creative Force must have existed to create the universe, that is all we can say about the creation. We cannot say in what manner he created the universe, because while it was being created there was none but the Creative Force to observe it. The story surrounding Adam and Eve is perfectly possible. Any actions that the Creative Force takes meddling with His creation don't have to follow the otherwise standard laws of the universe, because the Force Itself isn't even a part of the universe. The supposed inconsistencies with the Adam and Eve story are none."

 

Just thought I'd repost that since Jistuma said that he didn't read it. Specified complexity is a really interesting topic, and one I think should be considered here.

[Lago 2572]

PART 1, responses to statements that are actually incorrect (rather than ones I simply disagree with)

 

You're still getting the Second Law of Thermodynamics and changes in enthalpy and entropy wrong.

 

The entirety of post 863 is wrong.

"Anyway, since the earth is gaining and losing energy, and thus entropy, and every thermodynamic process increases entropy more than it should"

Thermodynamic processes can both increase and decrease entropy of parts of the system. The entropy of the entire system (the universe, if assumed to be closed) is what increases.

"(like, if I expect to gain 3 entropy units (there are none, but for the sake of the example) in a process, I will actuall gain 4. If expect to lose 2 entropy units, I will actually lose 1). "

This is incorrect.

 

"Thus the earth is losing order at a pretty much constant rate, so no, the entropy does not stay the same. It really just decreases."

Contradiction. If the Earth becomes less ordered then entropy goes up. Entropy is a measure of disorder, not order. Also, the rate of increase in entropy of the Earth is not constant. It varies in both direction and magnitude all the time. I could change that rate right now by typing more softly.

 

"(The function of order is not a state function. If it took the earth any time at all to reach its present thermodynamic state, the amount of order associated with the temperature today will be less than the same temperature in the past.)"

Also wrong. The standard entropy change of a particular chemical reaction under standard conditions is as constant as the enthalpy change of the reaction. It doesn't change with time. If I put one mole of hydrogen in one decimetre cubed of space and put it to 200 Kelvin, it will have the same entropy as every other one mole of hydrogen in decimetre cubed of space at 200 Kelvin in exactly the same conditions. Entropy changes for processes change no more than the value of 2 does.

So yes, I do understand the Second law, and this is how it works.

The second law is that the entropy of the universe always increases. Stars increase the entropy of the universe as they burn, and the energy from those stars life uses to decrease its own entropy. Evolution by Natural Selection may turn out to be wrong, but not for reasons of thermodynamics. Entropy must be treated mathematically and with no mental abstraction, and when treated mathematically it becomes a very difficult concept: if the Second Law is treated in a literary sense, then I could say that in order for society to become more orderly, something must become disorderly.

 

A few other mistakes in other posts:

 

Every one of these mutations causes harm to the species, making it
inferior, making it die off. This, in effect, supports the status quo in
a species rather than supporting evolution.

White hair at the north pole is an advantage. A black bear will stick out like a sore thumb.
 

 

True statement. When the water thaws and increases to its original
temperature, however, its entropy will be more than it originally was.

No! It'll be exactly the same! The total entropy of the universe, however, will have increased.
 

 

Based on the very principles of
natural selection which macroevolution claims to be based on, it cannot
logically exist. Creatures undergoing macroevolution would have always
been more unfit than their finely-tuned cohorts in their species,
leaving them immediately vulnerable and soon dead. This is what is known
of as specified complexity.

True until the environment changes. Then the mutants may have the advantage.
 

 

EDIT: wait! I think i get it! If the same amount of energy coming into
earth is going out, then earth would be a giant ice ball, because it
would make it at 0 kelvin. it is clear that the earth is not at 0
kelvin, thus energy must be coming into earth constantly to make it the
temperature it is.... am i making any sense here?

If more energy is going in than out, then the object gets hotter or faster. The Earth is staying at roughly the same temperature, so heat in and heat out of the atmosphere are roughly similar.

 

Everyone here seems to be mixing up entropy and energy a lot.

 

 

(like, if I expect to gain 3 entropy units (there are none, but for the sake of the example)

Entropy is measured in change in entropy. The unit is Joules per Kelvin per Mole.

 

The story surrounding Adam and Eve is perfectly possible.

It would mean the entire human race is incest? To make a third generation, Adam and Eve's children would have to... well. It's a very small gene pool. Look at those poor pedigree dogs and you'll see how well that goes.

 

You just totally misunderstood what I said in your quote. I mentioned
the harvesting of energy. You mentioned the emission of energy. We are
talking about opposite processes. I totally agree with your statement,
because your statement is describing the opposite effect of what I was
describing. Thanks for increasing my credibility :D

Oh, were you referring to endothermic reactions rather than energy in the form of heat and movement? If you provide a few of the chemical equations you are referring to, I can show you where you're getting entropy wrong.

 

I'll throw this one out there: Disproving evolution is not proof of Genesis creationism. Pastafarian Creationism is just as probable based on evidence. All religious creation stories are just as probable. It is possible that Evolution by Natural Selection is incorrect. In fact, I would say it is incredibly likely that there are holes in it, our knowledge of biochemistry is, relatively speaking, very new and there is still much more to discover. I would not be surprised if much of the scientific knowledge we treat as (irony incoming) gospel, turns out to be wrong in the future. We currently have two contradictory theories at the heart of physics, after all. Like all scientific theores, it can be adapted when those holes appear, or discarded and replaced by a new theory that fits all the evidence. Me? Evolution works for all intents and purposes I'll ever need it for. Does God exist? I don't know. The only thing I have confidence in is that literally interpreting religious scripture is like trusting a tabloid. People wrote it, people translated it, and thus people will fiddle with it, consciously or unconsciously. For me, Evolution by Natural Selection is as good an explanation as any. For now.

 

_______________________________________________________

PART 2, actual post

EDIT: See my next post

[hammer01 29]

If more energy is going in than out, then the object gets hotter or faster. The Earth is staying at roughly the same temperature, so heat in and heat out of the atmosphere are roughly similar.

 

Everyone here seems to be mixing up entropy and energy a lot.

 

It would mean the entire human race is incest

The Energy is absorbed into certain plants and animals, making the earth as a whole have a higher entropy.... that was what we were getting at...

 

It is entirely possible that God created other humans on earth....

[Jistuma 1996]

If thats so, then wouldnt the energy just cancel itself out and earth become semi-closed? or am I just not understanding...

 

EDIT: wait! I think i get it! If the same amount of energy coming into earth is going out, then earth would be a giant ice ball, because it would make it at 0 kelvin. it is clear that the earth is not at 0 kelvin, thus energy must be coming into earth constantly to make it the temperature it is.... am i making any sense here?

You're almost there, 0 kelvin would be if infact, more energy were leaving than entering, that would be the ice-ball.

The energy that leaves and enters makes so that earth stays about the same average temperature, about 15ºC. Since about the same energy leaves and enters, the temperature of the earth stays about the same, with fluxuations of course, but never more than 3 ºC. Think about this like a math.

You have 100 of energy, you add 20 energy from the sun, and remove 20 energy from the cold side of the earth: 100 + 20 - 20 = 100. And that is how things stay with the same entropy and same temperature.

Of course it's a lot more complicated than that, but the fact is that earth's temperature finds a balance, just like in every other planet in the solar system (Rock planet, not gas giants)

[Lago 2572]

The Energy is absorbed into certain plants and animals, making the earth
as a whole have a higher entropy.... that was what we were getting
at...

The solar energy is absorbed by plants, and is used to turn carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen. The products in that reaction are more "ordered" than the reactants. The entropy of the Earth's gone down. When that glucose is burned up for energy, the entropy goes back up to where it was before. The entropy of the Sun has increased at a nuclear level, so universal entropy has gone up.

 

As I seem to have edited my post from a while back rather than posted anew, I'll repost my Part 2 and delete it from the edited post.

_______________________________________________________

PART 2, actual post

 

Science is not, believe it or not, about facts. It is about models. Ionic bonding does not happen. The Kekule structure of Benzene is incorrect. Yet both of those chemical models are used because, for most intents and purposes, they work, and that's what matters. If for one person, red was blue and blue was red, they'd call red blue and blue red and it would make no difference at all.

 

Whether or not one chooses to believe in evolution, creationism, or whatever other method, is a moot point. What happened happened. What we choose to believe happened makes no difference to what happened.

 

Colour does not exist.

 

It's a construct of the human mind. Red isn't real. A photon wavelength of about 400nm is real, but THIS is all in your head. So much of our world is what we believe it to be until proven otherwise to our personal satisfaction. For theists, God is real. For atheists, God is not real. Until I finally show him otherwise, thermodynamics is a little different for Sarkly. The world might actually be flat, having never strayed outside Europe, how am I to be certain? Quite easily, actually, but I could still be wrong. Truth is as real as red is.

 

If you look at particularly notable atheist to theist converts, they do not become theists because someone told them God is real. They become theists because it is proven to them to their satisfaction, usually by a traumatic event like an NDE. No sane human will give up the truths they cling to based on an internet discussion. I think, after 87 pages of no progress either way, it is time to let this thread die. Like political debates or that abortion thread, it does not belong in a community that wants to hold closely together. Let's get back to what this website is really about.


When I die, there are two possibilities. One is a rather depressing oblivion. The other is Sarkly looking down from the Pearly Gates saying "told ya so." :P