Free fuel - great idea, but it won't last

154 replies [Last post]
85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: luckys420
Quote:
Originally posted by: Windaria
What a funny comment... man never lived with dinosaurs. They actually have some really curious evidence that they have unearthed that show that to not be the case... places where they have found burried tracks of human and dinosaur tracks running side by side, as if the human was hunting the dinosaur, or ... vice versa. They've been found in the US, in Turkmenistan, and other such areas.

Oh well, that's modern science for you... hide or discredit anything that doesn't fit your theory. It used to be that something had to undergo falsification to be considered scientific fact...

Oh wait, isn't the discrediting thing something that most grease users are upset about as well? Odd...

-------------------------
- Windaria
this deserves no comment because it is just... well wrong. i'll let you live in ignorance.

85300d said
"I think you may be confusing energy with with entropy. Just because you have energy in a system (we all know that energy is neither created nor destroyed) doesnt mean that entropy will decrease. There must be a directing force to keep entropy from increasing. The law states that ALL sytems will increase in entropy. Adding energy to a system makes it an open system but does not necesarily mean that entropy will decrease."

you thought wrong. you missed what i said about an irreversable proccess and a reverable process. look it over again, look up the definition of entropy, and after you are well informed on this subject get back to me. cause i am not going to explain to you the definitions of the bases for your argument.

85300d said
"As far as seeing evolution, I AGREE. We can. THe definition of evolution is "change". We can see species change, but that doesnt come anywhere close to explaining the large scale macro-evolution fairy tale we see proported by some scientists. You see in order to create a new species, NEW genetic information must be added into the gene pool. Where does the NEW genetic information come from? Santa Claus? Please dont say mutation, because you know as well as I do that mutation is mostly detrimental to the organism, and most importantly is just a variance in OLD genetic info. "

wrong. all the info we need is already here. all the info is contained from different variations of ATC and G. evolution , which you admited, would not wok without mutation. it is what drives evolution. mutation can be detrimental to an organism, yes but not always, and not always do you know mutation is there. i am not going to teach you the basics of genetics and evolution. maybey later. when i have more time or if you have specific questions. but dont base your arguments on things you are unsure of. some one who is not educated on the subject may hink your right, but not anyone who is proficient.
will

-------------------------
1980 mercedes 300tdt
I find it funny how the evolutionist always resorts to downplaying the creationist's arguements and to name calling......I am too ignorant for you? Uneducated? O.K.

Heaven forbid that someone hears my arguements and thinks im right...... This isnt a discussion for the high and mighty. Thats the problem, many "scientists" make this stuff out to be soooo complicated. Anyone of average intellignece can look at this stuff and at least realize that there are TWO sides to this arguement.

Hey, maybe you can watch General Stark and I talk civily for a while. Maybe you'll read something you didnt know before. Stop acting like your too smart for us all and feel free to participate.

Oh, and Windaria is not as wrong as you think.....

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

Windaria's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2004

How odd that you write it off so quickly. Heck, go to any search engine and punch in the words:

man dinosaur footprints

The fact is that they have found the footprints side by side in the same layers. There is geologic evidence, many just don't like to deal with it 'cause it doesn't fit within their nice little box of things. I wasn't saying that as a creationist argument, you can find the evidence yourself. Heck, if you live near Glen Rose, TX you can visit one of the sites yourself.

I mean yes, I'll be honest, I do believe in creation, but in the context of what you were saying and what I replied with that is irrelevent. It is a scientific matter.

Oh well.

-------------------------
- Windaria

luckys420's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2004

Name calling? downplaying your argument, isnt that the point of an argument. I'm sorry if you think, I think I am all high and mighty. i dont. as far as the common man not being able to understand this, that is not true. For gods sake I was A well driller right out of high scool. its just that you are making arguments by using examples that are not right. such as where does new genetic information come from? santa claus? and dont tell me mutations. do you understand how genetic information is used and passed on from generation to generation? Do you know how mutations effect the phenotype of an organism? if you dont then maybey you should find out before argueing against it or using as an argument.
If windaria is'nt as wrong as i think, tell me who "they" are and let me read the evidence for myself. I have not heard of this, maybey i am blindfolded by the crazy scientific community. I mean really what the hell were they thinking when they invented gravity! ;)
will

-------------------------
1980 mercedes 300tdt

luckys420's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2004

yup i looked it up, about 90% of the web sites on the first few pages of google had the word bible in the title. and what i found is that the scientific community, as well as the majority of the creationist community has dissmised it becasue their is not enough evidence to suggest that they are "giant" man prints, besides if it was a giant man. shouldnt we be giants?
will

-------------------------
1980 mercedes 300tdt

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: luckys420
Name calling? downplaying your argument, isnt that the point of an argument. I'm sorry if you think, I think I am all high and mighty. i dont. as far as the common man not being able to understand this, that is not true. For gods sake I was A well driller right out of high scool. its just that you are making arguments by using examples that are not right. such as where does new genetic information come from? santa claus? and dont tell me mutations. do you understand how genetic information is used and passed on from generation to generation? Do you know how mutations effect the phenotype of an organism? if you dont then maybey you should find out before argueing against it or using as an argument.
If windaria is'nt as wrong as i think, tell me who "they" are and let me read the evidence for myself. I have not heard of this, maybey i am blindfolded by the crazy scientific community. I mean really what the hell were they thinking when they invented gravity! ;)
will

-------------------------
1980 mercedes 300tdt
Luckys420:

Yes, the point of an arguement is to name call and downplay. We are debating. You make a point, and then I make a point rebuttling you initial point. I dont want to argue.

I understand genetic information fairly well. Like I said, I have studies this stuff myself in an effort to understand - BOTH evolution and creation. I have taken college anthropology, astronomy, physics etc in order to understand the evolutionist's point of view. I was searching for the answer. Most my knowledge of the creation point of view comes from books and seminars that I have read and attended over the years.

Now, on to genetics. The point I made was a valid one. Harmful genetic mutation is 1000 times more likely to be passed on then helpful mutation. This is a SERIOUS problem for evolutionists. The problem is the "genetic load" of a species. Over time, with enough mutations, the original genetic information becomes loaded with harmful mutation. If you have 1000 harmful mutations and ONE helpful mutation, is that evolution? If so, we should start breeding with our brothers and sister. Yup, thats right. Breeding with your siblings GREATLY increases the risk of harmful mutation. We all know that. But, it also increases the chances of helpful mutation too. So, why dont we do that? Well, for one, its gross (but if we are just animals that shouldnt matter). But in terms of evolution, we would have so many more harful mutations than helpful.....we'd be DEvolving. So, you see, mutation doesnt explain how evolution can occur in the least. Many leading evolutionists now realize that. Helpful mutations merely slow the rate of genetic decay (sounds like thermodynamics, kinda...?) it slows down genetic loading. If I told you that I found a way to make your grease car run up-hill without ANY fuel you'd be interested right? Then, I pushed your car down a hill and used the brakes to slow it down, and then said "You see! in theory, we can make it run up hill without an engine." You'd say "Whatever! Youre an idiot." Well, thats the point im making here. Positive mutations only SLOW the rate of genetic loading, they in NO WAY make a species evolve.

Furthermore, it doesnt come anywhere close to proving macro-evolution. Mutation only changes WITHIN a species. Even if I PURPOSELY, selectively breed a species and only breed the positive traits, I still only end up with a variation of my initial species. Why? There was never any additional genetic information added in to the pool. YOU NEED NEW INFORMATION to go from one species to another. Where does it come from? So, yes, evolution is FACT if you mean change within a species. We see it all over and that fits perfectly with the creationists position. But, we are talking about PROFOUND structural changes. Amphibian to Astronaut. I dont see it.

Oh, and you never chimed in on my answer to the thermodynamics question....but the

birdman mark's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/30/2004

wow, I just stumbled upon this thread and I can't help but correct a couple of misstatements by 85300D. First of all "Harmful genetic mutation is 1000 times more likely to be passed on then helpful mutation" is obviously false because although deleterious mutations are indeed much more likely to appear than are beneficial mutations, they will not be passed on because the organism with the harmful mutation will not be as fit as its contemporaries and will leave many fewer, if any, offspring.

Secondly "we should start breeding with our brothers and sister. Yup, thats right. Breeding with your siblings GREATLY increases the risk of harmful mutation. We all know that." Actually no. Inbreeding does not have anything to do with the risk of mutation. It only increases the chances that two harmful recessive alleles will get together in the offspring. For example, if you carry one recessive allele for cystic fibrosis, then there is a 50% chance that your sister is also a carrier. Yet you both appear normal because you need 2 recessive alleles in the same individual for cf to be expressed. so if you shack up with your sister, there is a one in eight chance that the resulting bundle of creationist joy will have cystic fibrosis. If you breed with a random person, however, the chances go down to about one in 100. sorry for the genetics lesson, but if it is going to be discussed, it should be with correct information.

85300D, I am curious to hear how you explain the fossil record, which shows the ever changing biodiversity on this planet.

oh, yeah, grease...scored 40 gallons of sweetness from the new china buffet today...life is grand (temporarily blocking out the news of Nov 3)

Mark

EECSentric's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/14/2004

Ok, everyone, stop replying to this.

Arguing for creationism is like arguing for the "motionless electromagnetic generator" thread we had a few weeks back or the "the US blew up the pentagon" thread. Take a look at Timecube.com

Creationism is based on faith. And if I may quote a favorite book and movie Dune, "One cannot go against the word of God." If that's what you believe in fine. Just don't teach it in a public school or use it to influence our government. Ok now everyone laugh because we just lost that ability last Tuesday. Teach creationism in church, fine. But the point is, don't claim science by ignoring the scientific method. It's faith, so take it as that.

That said, I'll reiterate a factoid I put up in the MEG thread. Ted Kazinski has a PhD, but at this point, he not intellectually trustworthy. Have you ever listened to the comedy skit "Ask Dr. Science"? It is quite entertaining. The creation/evolution debate is not entertaining. Neither is the thermodynamics debate.

That said, keep on greasin everyone. Even if this doesn't last, we'll squeeze the most out of it.

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: birdman mark
wow, I just stumbled upon this thread and I can't help but correct a couple of misstatements by 85300D. First of all "Harmful genetic mutation is 1000 times more likely to be passed on then helpful mutation" is obviously false because although deleterious mutations are indeed much more likely to appear than are beneficial mutations, they will not be passed on because the organism with the harmful mutation will not be as fit as its contemporaries and will leave many fewer, if any, offspring.

Secondly "we should start breeding with our brothers and sister. Yup, thats right. Breeding with your siblings GREATLY increases the risk of harmful mutation. We all know that." Actually no. Inbreeding does not have anything to do with the risk of mutation. It only increases the chances that two harmful recessive alleles will get together in the offspring. For example, if you carry one recessive allele for cystic fibrosis, then there is a 50% chance that your sister is also a carrier. Yet you both appear normal because you need 2 recessive alleles in the same individual for cf to be expressed. so if you shack up with your sister, there is a one in eight chance that the resulting bundle of creationist joy will have cystic fibrosis. If you breed with a random person, however, the chances go down to about one in 100. sorry for the genetics lesson, but if it is going to be discussed, it should be with correct information.

85300D, I am curious to hear how you explain the fossil record, which shows the ever changing biodiversity on this planet.

oh, yeah, grease...scored 40 gallons of sweetness from the new china buffet today...life is grand (temporarily blocking out the news of Nov 3)

Mark
First I want to say that a LARGE number of modern day evolutionists no longer regard the neo-darwinian mechanism of mutation-selection as a good scientific explanation for the origin of the species. SO, this debate is a little old school.

I will disagree with you that inbreeding does not effect the mutation rate in a species. A mutation can simply be defined as an error in DNA. Many of these errors in DNA are recessive. When siblings interbreed it basicly doubles the chance that these recessive errors manifiest themsleves. A study done with inbreeding fruit flys years ago, yielded many mutations: short wings, deformaties, blindness etc. The study was done by an evolutionist. Even without inbreeding, recessive mutations build up to a certain point and are difficult to remove by natural selection. This genetic load poses a problem for a species over time....it doesnt help it. Right now, over 1% of humans are born with some type if mutation. Are benificial mutations possible? Yes, but it is my assertion that it is not enough to create a forward progress, it just slows the downward slide. These are not new arguements.......

Furthermore, we are still speaking of change WITHIN a species......we have yet to come to a viable answer as to how we evolve from one species to another without the addition of new genetic material...

The fossil record? Your gonna use the fossil record as a point in your favor? If this huge macro-evolutionary scheme really did take place, the fossil record would be undeniable. I dont (and many others dont) see it. Unless your refering to shining examples like Hesperopithecus who was the "missing link" built entirely from a pigs tooth. Or the other one (name excapes me) fashioned from the remains of a pygmy chimpanzee. I dont see a good arguement for evolution in the fossil record. In reality, the number if fossils you could call to your defense would fit in a box the size of a small coffin.......

I also scored about 40 gallons last night! Rock on.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: EECSentric
Ok, everyone, stop replying to this.

Arguing for creationism is like arguing for the "motionless electromagnetic generator" thread we had a few weeks back or the "the US blew up the pentagon" thread. Take a look at Timecube.com

Creationism is based on faith. And if I may quote a favorite book and movie Dune, "One cannot go against the word of God." If that's what you believe in fine. Just don't teach it in a public school or use it to influence our government. Ok now everyone laugh because we just lost that ability last Tuesday. Teach creationism in church, fine. But the point is, don't claim science by ignoring the scientific method. It's faith, so take it as that.

That said, I'll reiterate a factoid I put up in the MEG thread. Ted Kazinski has a PhD, but at this point, he not intellectually trustworthy. Have you ever listened to the comedy skit "Ask Dr. Science"? It is quite entertaining. The creation/evolution debate is not entertaining. Neither is the thermodynamics debate.

That said, keep on greasin everyone. Even if this doesn't last, we'll squeeze the most out of it.
I agree that creationism is faith based. But, so is evolution. An evolutionist comes with the presupposition that all processes are naturally occuring, thus leaving God out of the picture. The point I am trying to make in discussing this is that evolution takes MORE FAITH to believe it.......there are just too many holes. It can hardly be regarded as even a good theory. A good teacher (as I hope I am) brings both sides to the class (scientifically) and allows them to make up their own mind.....

Creationism isnt hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. It has been and will be backed by science. After all, my God is the author of science. He's the one who makes the rules. So to say that God is not scientific, is absurd.

There are full-time PHd's that devote their life to the study of creation science....their not idiots, in fact I have heard some fo them speak and they are incredibly intelligent. In fact its rare to see an evolutionist step into a debate with some of these guys because they get anialated. Creationists are just not heard amongst the scientific community because there are so few in comparison and many evolutionists have an adjenda - the elimination of God.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

luckys420's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2004

give me some time and i will reply to everything you have stated, I have alot of other stuff to do and i want to be as accurate as possible. i am going to reveiw the lit. and try to show you why i hold my views. Nonetheless, all i have seen from you is an attempt to discredit the evidence presented in favor of evolution. I have not seen you present any evidence in favor of creationism. dispoving evidence of evolution( not addmiting that you have) does not automatically mean that creationism is right.
congrats on the 40 gallons.
I will remain civil and i am sorry if i offended you there was no intention to do so.
i also commend you on trying your best to give an equal oppurtunity to both ideas when teaching your students.
will

-------------------------
1980 mercedes 300tdt

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: luckys420
give me some time and i will reply to everything you have stated, I have alot of other stuff to do and i want to be as accurate as possible. i am going to reveiw the lit. and try to show you why i hold my views. Nonetheless, all i have seen from you is an attempt to discredit the evidence presented in favor of evolution. I have not seen you present any evidence in favor of creationism. dispoving evidence of evolution( not addmiting that you have) does not automatically mean that creationism is right.
congrats on the 40 gallons.
I will remain civil and i am sorry if i offended you there was no intention to do so.
i also commend you on trying your best to give an equal oppurtunity to both ideas when teaching your students.
will

-------------------------
1980 mercedes 300tdt
Sounds good. If the thread dies before you have a chance to respond, email me and let me know you posted.

You are absolutely right in that discrediting (dont think it will ever be disproved) evolution doesnt mean that creationism is right. As far as presenting a case for creation, I wouldnt know where to start. There are so many different views on it - young earth, old earth, catastrophism etc.. Theres a lot there to be covered....and I am not sure exactly what I believe. I do know that for every topic that the evolutionary side brings up whether its in regards to geology, sedimentology, genetics, physics, astronomy etc., there is a strong rebuttal from the creationists camp. Some very good arguements, some a little weaker. I do know that the traditional evolutionary views we are all taught in school fall far short and can easily be debunked most of the time.

If your really interested in evidence for creationism check out ICR.org These guys are one of the scientific institutions studying various aspect of creationism. Some of the most interesting reading I have come across is in regards to their work at Mt. St Helens (type "Mt St. Helens" in their search feature) and the strong evidence that they have uncovered to support catastrophism. Its very convincing and they are even responsible for changing traditional views on how petrified forest came about. They challenge the geologic column and provide strong support for the possibility that earth is not as old as some people think.

Anyways, I look forward to your response on the questions raised about genetics and thermodynamics......

Just to comment on my teaching, I actually have little oportunity for teaching evolution or creationism as an auto technology teacher, but every once in a while it comes up with individuals students. Thanks though! ;)

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: 85300D
General Stark -

You bring up good points indeed and I am debating with an intelligent fellow. Thank you for not blowing off my arguements as ignorant (as some others do) and rebutting them head on.

First I wan to clarify one thing: Creationists do not argue that God is the "rule bending force" behind sytems so that their levels of entropy do not increase. The earth, and its subsytems from creation, have been winding down. Creationists use thermodynamics as an arguement because it creates a huge stumbling block to the theory of evolution. Special Creation fits perfectly with the scientific law.

When I say that thermodynamics dictates that ALL systems increase in entropy, I should clarify myself. There are sytems that, for at least a short period of time display an increase in complexity. Your example of a living being was an excellent one. Kudos. These systems are indeed open and draw on external sources of energy and even though their entropy is decreased for a while it is at the expense of an overall increase in entropy.

However, I want to reiterate. Having an open in the system is not sufficient to decrease entropy. All systems here on earth are considered open becasue they have access to the sun's energy. There is NO system however that shows decreasing levels of entropy UNLESS it has a highly specific program to direct its growth and a complex mechanism to convert the sun's energy into the work of building its growth.

So, if these systems are CREATED, with life in mind, by a Creator, with these specific growth programs, we see a decrease in entropy for a short time. The big question for you is how do these systems EVOLVE in the first place?

So, you see, you have provided fine examples of systems that decrease entropy, but fail to answer how a biosphere as a whole can evolve to higher order. If we start as a simple inanimate molecule, where is the program to direct its growth? WHere is the mechanism for connverting the suns energy. This, I believe is the big stumbling block. I have heard a few answers to these questions, but none have really distinguished themselves as THE answer.

-Sean

Edit: I just reread your last post.......Creationism is not based on a antiquated view of scientific reason. There are guys with PHD's who understand this stiff much better than me (and probably you) who support the creationist's view. I have just outlined what I think is a reasonable challenge to the evolutionists camp on this particular issue, but the challenges are across the board.....

ANd as far as not calling creationism a theory, a THEORY is unproven - like the theory of evolution. If its proven it is a law - like the law of thermodynamics. So no, creation is not proven, but neither is evolution. We're in the same boat. Both theories.
-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"
GENERAL STARK -

I expected to hear back from you on this one...... Whats up?

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D,

Unfortunately, I have limited access to a computer as I only have one at work, and right now I'm spending more time outside than in the office. I will have some time later in the day to respond to your comments.

However, I have to say that I think we're not going to get too far with the creationist vs. evolutionist debate. IMO you are correct that neither can be proven or disproven. There are many holes in each, though at least the evidence that supports "evolution" has been subject to scientific debate and the checks and balances required. Creationist "scientists" spend more time trying to debunk evolution than actually coming up with data to support their ideas. There is no common concensus among creationists (as you stated) as to their "theory".

In my mind, Creation is just too simple of a concept to define an intensely complex world. Evolution theories, as well as other scientific theories, are always evolving and changing because they are subject to peer review. The most recent and groundbreaking concepts are loose and chaotic, not rigid as Darwin thought. Creationists are holding on to a perception of the world that is grounded in a backwater understanding of "God".

I would be more interesting in debating why Creationists and right wing Christians are so intent on holding on to their views of God and spirituality that are so old and antiquated, while the rest of the scientific world has advanced so far in terms of leaving behind these limited perceptions of the Universe. And, better yet why these individuals seem so intent on creating legislation that limits tolerance for a diversity of opinion regarding these issues we are discussing. We could also debate how the mechanistic view of the world that is perpetuated by creationism and the Christian view of God impacts social issues, ecological issues, human justice, democracy, etc. etc.

This discussion started at a point made about resource consumption. Perhaps we can continue more along these lines, instead of evolution vs. creation which is more of an academic discussion than one that effects the lives of the people.

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: GeneralStark
85300D,

Unfortunately, I have limited access to a computer as I only have one at work, and right now I'm spending more time outside than in the office. I will have some time later in the day to respond to your comments.

However, I have to say that I think we're not going to get too far with the creationist vs. evolutionist debate. IMO you are correct that neither can be proven or disproven. There are many holes in each, though at least the evidence that supports "evolution" has been subject to scientific debate and the checks and balances required. Creationist "scientists" spend more time trying to debunk evolution than actually coming up with data to support their ideas. There is no common concensus among creationists (as you stated) as to their "theory".

In my mind, Creation is just too simple of a concept to define an intensely complex world. Evolution theories, as well as other scientific theories, are always evolving and changing because they are subject to peer review. The most recent and groundbreaking concepts are loose and chaotic, not rigid as Darwin thought. Creationists are holding on to a perception of the world that is grounded in a backwater understanding of "God".

I would be more interesting in debating why Creationists and right wing Christians are so intent on holding on to their views of God and spirituality that are so old and antiquated, while the rest of the scientific world has advanced so far in terms of leaving behind these limited perceptions of the Universe. And, better yet why these individuals seem so intent on creating legislation that limits tolerance for a diversity of opinion regarding these issues we are discussing. We could also debate how the mechanistic view of the world that is perpetuated by creationism and the Christian view of God impacts social issues, ecological issues, human justice, democracy, etc. etc.

This discussion started at a point made about resource consumption. Perhaps we can continue more along these lines, instead of evolution vs. creation which is more of an academic discussion than one that effects the lives of the people.
There is no common consensus amongst creationist.......yes, there are several different views as to the how it happened.....probably because we werent there. The one thing that we all hold in common is that God did it.

I agree that the creation story is simple way of explaining a complex God. I would like to point out though that I think that the evolution tail is far too simplistic in trying to explain a process by natural means when it is a supernatural creation. It is a complex world and we are far too presumptious to think that we can completely understand the ways of God. The Bible talks about people like this and says that "in their wisdom they became fools". To put in into today's language....... "they think their so smart, but they really dont have a clue".

The fact that you think that creation scientist dont have evidence to back their position tells me you havent looked into it much. Its not just debunking, there is much evidence gathered in support of special creation....did you check out the site I listed above. Thats just one view, one organization, and I dont agree with everything they stand for, but alot of it is very good.

In the beginning of this debate, I was refered to as uneducated, and ignorant in the sciences. I am still regarded as having a limited view of the universe. But, even in my limited view, I have still managed to point out some serious stumbling blocks in the areas brought up. All I have gotten is - "i'll get back to you". Which is fine, and I respect the fact that you want to take the time to research...... but dont call my views old and antiquated at the same time. They may be old questions, but if they dont have an answer, then they cant be just disregarded. If the theory defies the law, then the theory should be pitched or modified.

As far as

greasebunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2004

Any idea how long the free veggie might last? If it will be outlawed or taxed to death? Just wondering.

Art

-------------------------
It's not Easy being Greasy!

99 Golf TDI Greasecar greased! 3000 grease miles

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: greasebunny
Any idea how long the free veggie might last? If it will be outlawed or taxed to death? Just wondering.

Art

-------------------------
It's not Easy being Greasy!

99 Golf TDI Greasecar greased! 3000 grease miles
:) lol!

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

Windaria's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2004

I would actually just like to point out for the record that I never argued for creationism, I just pointed out odd things that I saw.

Sort of like now how quite a few scientists who used to be on the evolution bandwagon have now switched to a theory known as (don't ask me how you really spell it), procreated equiliberiam. I never can remember how to spell it, and it has been a year or so since I looked into it.

But basically they realized that the 'gaps' in the 'fossil record' were so insanely huge that they just couldn't be filled, so they decided that one species must suddenly give birth to another, somewhat closely related species.

In other words, pay close attention when your dog is pregnant... it just may give birth to cats!

Oh well... now I'm starting to sound like BatteryBoy.

-------------------------
- Windaria

AD
AD's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/09/2004

Ok, here is the essence of the creationist vs. evolutionist argument boiled down into two sentences:

Evolutionists take the evidence that they are provided with and develop a conclusion from that evidence.

Creationists develop a conclusion first and then try to find evidence to support it.

AD
AD's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/09/2004

Windaria - are you referring to "Punctuated equilibrium"?....and if you are, I think you may not understand the theory.

wny pat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2004

How did we ever get here from availability of wvo???

Oh, think you guys need to read William James - "The Varieties of Religious Experience". It is very enlightening!

-------------------------
Hauled enough dino petroleum products!!!

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: AD
Ok, here is the essence of the creationist vs. evolutionist argument boiled down into two sentences:

Evolutionists take the evidence that they are provided with and develop a conclusion from that evidence.

Creationists develop a conclusion first and then try to find evidence to support it.
Actually, both points of view interpret evidence in light of a presupposition:

Evolution presupposes that there is no God and all systems are naturally occuring. The processes we see in action today are the processes that have occured through out time.

Creation presupposes that there is a God and that his creation was supernatural.

Both sides interpret data in that light. Both sides are a leap of faith.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

So, where to start.... How about here:

85300D says:

"So, you see, you have provided fine examples of systems that decrease entropy, but fail to answer how a biosphere as a whole can evolve to higher order. If we start as a simple inanimate molecule, where is the program to direct its growth? WHere is the mechanism for connverting the suns energy. This, I believe is the big stumbling block. I have heard a few answers to these questions, but none have really distinguished themselves as THE answer."

The reason you have found no answer is because there is no answer, only more questions. In thinking that there is an answer, or that there is a mechanism, or a program to direct life, or that things are things, you are missing one of the most amazing things about life. It is self-regulating and self-perpetuating, and there are so many possibilities as to how this is possible, that attempting to find one is blasphemous. We all feel this in our hearts and souls, and to try to convince people that any one way is right is buying into a backwater and antiquated perception of God. God is about possibilites, not one individual's or one group's vision of God. Think of all the various cultural views of God that have been created and handed down through the years. I find this to be a truly amazing and beautiful thing. It frightens me to be living in a time where people think that their perception or that the reality they have created for themselves is THE ONE, and everyone should live their lives according to that vision.

85300D says:

"I agree that creationism is faith based. But, so is evolution. An evolutionist comes with the presupposition that all processes are naturally occuring, thus leaving God out of the picture. The point I am trying to make in discussing this is that evolution takes MORE FAITH to believe it.......there are just too many holes. It can hardly be regarded as even a good theory. A good teacher (as I hope I am) brings both sides to the class (scientifically) and allows them to make up their own mind....."

I can't help but think that you get your information regarding evolution from a very biased source. What makes you think that evolutionists don't believe that God fits into the picture? DO you mean that YOUR perception of god doesn't fit into their scheme? And what do you mean exactly by 'naturally occuring"? Does this automatically imply that there is no force behind evoloutionary processes?

In your attempts to be a good teacher, do you really allow for different opinions of God? If I was your student and didn't believe your opinion of God as Creator, would you allow for that or attempt to get me to see your perspective. I do teach evolution and creation in my college intro. level ecology courses, and I allow for students to come to their own conclusions. However, I have to admit that I have yet to come across a student that truly believes the Creation Myth that is put forth by the Bible so in my classes the Creation discussion hasn't gone too far. Do I believe Creation is wrong? No. DO I believe it? No. I believe that there are a world of possibilities, and that life does not need a "program" or "Mechanism" to continue to exist; It only needs itself.

85300D says:

"It is a complex world and we are far too presumptious to think that we can completely understand the ways of God."

Are you saying that we shouldn't presume to understand how God operates (in the Creator sense of God) or we shouldn't presume to know what God is? I believe the latter is true.

85300D says:

"The fact that you think that creation scientist dont have evidence to back their position tells me you havent looked into it much. Its not just debunking, there is much evidence gathered in support of special creation....did you check out the site I listed above. Thats just one view, one organization, and I dont agree with everything they stand for, but alot of it is very good."

I did check out this website and others. I am well informed of the pseudo and junk science that Creationists use to pr

Windaria's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2004

Oh I know it is a gross oversimplification, I just think it is funny.

Anyway, I always thought that it is hilarious that people say that it is creationism vs. evolution. After all, not all secular scientists believe in evolution either. I mean, read Darwin's Black Box, the author isn't a Christian or anything...

And to say that evolution came about purely as a matter of looking at the evidence is somewhat funny, after all, Darwin was seeking an alternative view of the universe that could be explained outside of the beliefs of either his father or grandfather... can't remember which it was, who was a minister. And remember, one of the tenants of his theory was that he believed that once mankind understood the building blocks of life, they would discover that it was quite simple... though I think that once they realized what DNA was I would think that proved quite the contrary.

Anyway, like I was saying, I wasn't arguing for creation, I just think evolution is funny... I mean what... do you look at pond water and think "oh, hi there relatives! So nice to see you!"

-------------------------
- Windaria

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

GereralStark, you said this in response to the questions I raised in regards to the fact that current theories on evolution defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics......

"The reason you have found no answer is because there is no answer, only more questions. In thinking that there is an answer, or that there is a mechanism, or a program to direct life, or that things are things, you are missing one of the most amazing things about life. It is self-regulating and self-perpetuating, and there are so many possibilities as to how this is possible, that attempting to find one is blasphemous."

There obviously HAS to be an answer, because it happened right? We are here. To say there are so many possibilities as to HOW it happened seems like a cop-out. You were arguing for a naturalistic view of origins. You initially said that the theory of evolution did not violate the 2nd law. You did say: "In no way does life violate the 2nd law, it has evolved with the earth and its physical laws as a tightly coupled system so as to favor survival" How did life EVOLVE while still maintaining the 2nd law? If life were to evolve, there needs to be a mechanism or a program to direct life. We see it in everything.......how did it get there? Thats the question. According to the evolution model, the devolopment of all things can be explained in terms of continuing natural laws, in a self contained universe. Thats TRUE evolution. Hopefully, we can agree that this is impossible. It seems that you are now bringing the POSSIBILITY of God into the picture.....good.

General Stark said:

"I can't help but think that you get your information regarding evolution from a very biased source. What makes you think that evolutionists don't believe that God fits into the picture? DO you mean that YOUR perception of god doesn't fit into their scheme? And what do you mean exactly by 'naturally occuring"? Does this automatically imply that there is no force behind evoloutionary processes"

Yes, the sources I read are biased. So are the sources you read in regards to evolution. To think that the humanist doesnt have an adjenda or a bias in this whole thing is a big mistake. Science is knowledge. The scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatablity. In true science a hypothesis must be testable and capable of being refuted. Neither creation or evolution can be tested.

MY perception of God has not even been expressed in any kind of detail. I have not said that I believe in a seven-day literal interpretation of the Bible. I have pointed to a web-site that has interesting evidence, but also said that I do not agree with all. As I pointed out before, the evolution model, explains the devolopment of all things in terms of continuing natural laws in a closed universe....Creation asserts that at least some things must be attributed to supernatural processes in an open universe. You dont even have to bring the bible into it. Those are the two camps in a nutshell.

General Stark said:
"In your attempts to be a good teacher, do you really allow for different opinions of God? If I was your student and didn't believe your opinion of God as Creator, would you allow for that or attempt to get me to see your perspective. I do teach evolution and creation in my college intro. level ecology courses, and I allow for students to come to their own conclusions. However, I have to admit that I have yet to come across a student that truly believes the Creation Myth that is put forth by the Bible so in my classes the Creation discussion hasn't gone too far. Do I believe Creation is wrong? No. DO I believe it? No. I believe that there are a world of possibilities, and that life does not need a "program" or "Mechanism" to continue to exist; It only needs itself."

As I said before, I am an auto technolgy teacher, so the creation/evolution debate doesnt come up much amongst fuel injectors and transmissions. But, if it did, I would allow for open discussion....... As far as the rest of this stuff about life just needing itself.....No, life

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: Windaria
Oh I know it is a gross oversimplification, I just think it is funny.

Anyway, I always thought that it is hilarious that people say that it is creationism vs. evolution. After all, not all secular scientists believe in evolution either. I mean, read Darwin's Black Box, the author isn't a Christian or anything...

And to say that evolution came about purely as a matter of looking at the evidence is somewhat funny, after all, Darwin was seeking an alternative view of the universe that could be explained outside of the beliefs of either his father or grandfather... can't remember which it was, who was a minister. And remember, one of the tenants of his theory was that he believed that once mankind understood the building blocks of life, they would discover that it was quite simple... though I think that once they realized what DNA was I would think that proved quite the contrary.

Anyway, like I was saying, I wasn't arguing for creation, I just think evolution is funny... I mean what... do you look at pond water and think "oh, hi there relatives! So nice to see you!"

-------------------------
- Windaria
This is true, not all secular scientist believe in evolution .....Darwin's black box is a good one. I also have another called "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis", by Michael Denton. He is not a Christian or a creationist...

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

This will be my last contribution to this thread until it returns to a more relevant subject like consumption of resources. Though I do find it interesting, debating evolution vs. creation is purely academic, especially when one of the debaters is so set in a rigid dogma that only allows for him or her to say "me right, you wrong".

85300D says:

"You initially said that the theory of evolution did not violate the 2nd law. You did say: "In no way does life violate the 2nd law, it has evolved with the earth and its physical laws as a tightly coupled system so as to favor survival" How did life EVOLVE while still maintaining the 2nd law? If life were to evolve, there needs to be a mechanism or a program to direct life. We see it in everything.......how did it get there? Thats the question."

Life evolved hand in hand with the second law. Life evolved hand in hand with all the physical laws of the universe. This is why it exists today, because it been able to adapt to the physical conditions of our universe while at the same time impacting these same physical conditions to make them more suitable for life.

Once again, I still don't see why the 2nd Law is a "stumbling block" placed in the path of evolutionary theory. What you are saying is that there needs to be some mechanism or program to allow life to bend or break this law and to direct it how to do so. If life evolved according to physical laws, why should it have to bend or break them? and why does there need to be a how or a why? We do see patterns in nature for sure, but once again YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW and or WHY this Happened and continues to happen, which has nothing to do with the physical laws that affect life and how life affects them.

You are seeing life from a mechanistic perspective where, like a computer, life needs some program to operate and exist, but life in no way behaves like a machine. And for you, I guess the programmer of the computer is god, because life cannot continue to exist alongside physical laws without someone or something controlling it. IMO this is a limited perception of the world and has lead to many catastrophes within the span of time that humans have seen the world in this way.

Frankly, I don't know how or why it happened, bacuse I don't think there is one answer to these questions, and I think that it is a hopeless task to try to find a why or how.

85300D says:

"According to the evolution model, the devolopment of all things can be explained in terms of continuing natural laws, in a self contained universe. Thats TRUE evolution. Hopefully, we can agree that this is impossible. It seems that you are now bringing the POSSIBILITY of God into the picture.....good."

We don't agree because I don't believe this model of evolution and I don't know where you get this concept from, as if there is one "evolutionary model" in existence. I don't understand what is meant by continuing natural laws or a self-contained universe. The theory of evolution that I tend to align with is Gaia Theory. Check it out.

I'm glad that you are happy that I see a place in this discussion for god and the possibility of its existence. I however believe in a very different concept of god. You believe in God as Creator. I don't. It's difficult for me to define god because I don't think the words exist in our language.

85300D says:

"As far as the rest of this stuff about life just needing itself.....No, life CANT exist by itself. Thats the point of the debate."

I never said life only needs itself. Life is dependent on the Physical Earth as well as life itself. Without life, life would not exist, and without the physical earth, life would not exist. Life exists because it has created itself over time, and has become more complex in doing so, while using the same fundamental building blocks that have been in existence since the beginning of time. IMO there is a large body of evidence that promotes and sustains this concept.

85300D says:

"I dont want to come off sounding superior. I am nothing but in C

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

General Stark-

I am sensing some hostility in your writings. I want apologize if I upset you or caused you to be angered at the debate. That was not my intent. I can see you have some hostility towards Christians and I hope I didnt contribute to that. I dont even really recall how we got off on the subject matter, but I dont think it is inappropriate that we have veered off course of the original thread. I guess my intent in talking about the whole creation evolution thing was really to talk about the fact that there is more than blind faith guiding us right wing fanatics. :) Special creation is a logical well thought out approach to explaining our existance....and its not all clear cut and dry.

Im only going to touch on one thing that you said, because I really dont think you understand the crux of the matter regarding the second law. I dont want to be misrepresented on this.

You said:
"Life evolved hand in hand with the second law. Life evolved hand in hand with all the physical laws of the universe. This is why it exists today, because it been able to adapt to the physical conditions of our universe while at the same time impacting these same physical conditions to make them more suitable for life.

Once again, I still don't see why the 2nd Law is a "stumbling block" placed in the path of evolutionary theory. What you are saying is that there needs to be some mechanism or program to allow life to bend or break this law and to direct it how to do so. If life evolved according to physical laws, why should it have to bend or break them? and why does there need to be a how or a why? We do see patterns in nature for sure, but once again YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW and or WHY this Happened and continues to happen, which has nothing to do with the physical laws that affect life and how life affects them."

In a nutshell, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that all systems run from order to disorder, higher energy levels to lower energy levels. The excepetion to the rule is when the system has an open. You pointed out that the a living being is an exception because of its metabolism. A plant throughout its life will decrease levels of entropy as it goes from a seedling to plant and begins the process of photosynthesis etc. These are fine examples of systems that, for a period of time, do not increase their levels of entropy.

These systems take the available energy (ultimately from the sun) and convert it into usable energy to grow. They have a mechanism to do that and also have a program to direct the growth in their complexity.

Here is the crux of the matter! These systems are in place NOW and we can see them work harmoniously with the second law. I believe these systems have always been there as God has put them there. But according to the evolutionist they werent always in place. Everything evolved from the primordial "soup". Right? In every early stage of organic evolution we see an increase in complexity (decrease in entropy). In every case the system is indeed "open" to energy available from the sun, but lacks the mechanism to convert that energy. What is the pre-existing system that converts inorganic chemicals into the infinately intricate structures for life? Without the system required for converting the suns energy into usable energy, the system breaks down in accordance with the second law. It doesnt "adapt" or "find a way". Its a LAW - it can't be broken. Its like saying that if I throw a ball in the air enough times it will eventually stay up there and float because it will adapt to the law of gravity. It doesnt work that way. The theory of evolution breaks down at its starting point. This is the "stumbling block" im trying to get across. Its not the easiest to put it into words, but hopefully, you can see my point.

Anyways, as you said that was your last post, so I dont expect a reply........heck maybe the Gaia theory has an answer for this. I will look into that!

Thanks for the talk.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank sys

batteryboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/02/2004

Very GOOD SIR ED,

Too bad the Americans have been brainwashed by the media, and manipulated like a android programmed by some
crazed madman.

Too late Bush has his finger on the wwIII trigger

-------------------------
WHAZ UP hey all out there -nice to see some folks that aren't afraid to go against the grain and think for themselves and not just do as the masses!!!!!!!!!!!!

wny pat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/31/2004

Ed,
Well stated!!! Personally I think Diebold stole the election for him. And you know who owns Diebold!

-------------------------
Hauled enough dino petroleum products!!!

curly's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2004

I really think this will last quite awhile. Like you stated not everyone will be willing to filter etc...I'd like more info on this. We are moving up north at the start of next year and would really like to start my own business. Please reply I'm really interested.
Respectfully
Ken & Laurie Jenkins

-------------------------
thecompman
curly

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D-

Nope, no hostility here. I just think that we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion in terms of proving or disproving evolution. As you have stated, it is a theory.

The problem is related to perception. You and I perceive the world in very different ways. You seem to think that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution because the law states that things cannot grow more complex, instaed they go from order to disorder. The 2nd law merely deals with energy flow in the universe and in no way states that organisms can not become more complex as time progresses. You also view the world from a mechanistic perspective, where life needs a program in order to carry out basic life functions, and Gthe Divine Creator created that program.

I perceive the world from a more holistic perspective in which Natural SYstems are all inter-related and life has evolved purely on its own with no divine creator. Life strives to exist, so therefore it creates the mechanisms necessary to do so and over time becomes more complex. My perception IMO leaves room for interpretation, and a variety of possibilities in terms of how it could have all played out. This perception also leaves room to gain a better understanding of Human systems, and how our actions play a role in the greater "Gaian" system.

I see you perception as more rigid and IMO has lead to a perception of the world that is false and misguided. People have actually taken this perspective so far as to say that they are right and others are wrong. To me this is scary and can lead to situations that are documented in CocoaEd's article.

SO, no I'm not hostile, I just don't like being told that I need to find Jesus to become a more advanced being like yourself, and other right-wing Christians.

Ed,

Interesting article. Where do you stand on Right-Wing Christian ideals, and how those ideals have attempted to homogenize American and Global Culture. Is there room in the world for a diversity of views, or do we all just need to find Jesus to live righteous lives.

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

General Stark! I knew you couldnt resist answering! (humor here)

I want to address this statement on thermodynamics, which seems to be the crux of your rebuttal:

"The 2nd law merely deals with energy flow in the universe and in no way states that organisms can not become more complex as time progresses."

This is simply not true. The laws of thermodynamics are laws of universal conservation and decay. These laws not only apply in physics and chemistry, but in biology and geology. There are many applications to this law even including economic and social systems. I will point out only the THREE relevant applications to thermodynmics in this discussion:

1. Classical Thermodynamics - The ENERGY available for USEFUL work in a system tends to decrease, even though total energy remains the same. (this is what youre refering to)

2. Statistical Thermodynamics - The organized complexity in a system tends to grow more disorganized and random. (this is what ive been refering to.)

3. Informational Thermodynamics - THe information conveyed by a communication system tends towards disorder, distortion, and deterioration. (this is what I was alluding to in the genetics branch of this debate).

Im going to add to this debate with a a few quotes from Jeremy Rifkin, who is an evolutionist. He wrote a book on entropy. He agrees that there is a serious problem for the theory (but still holds to the theory).

In regards to your statement above, he says:

"The entropy law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein said that it is the premier law of ALL science; Sir Arthur Addington referred to it as the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe".

He goes on to say:

"We believe that evolution somehow creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts on our views of evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value.......Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of greater seas of disorder in the world. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE BIOLOGIST THAT OR PHYSICIST WHO CAN DENY THIS TRUTH. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?"

Hello?

Life can STRIVE all it wants, if it CANT happen, it wont. If its striving against all physical LAW then its not gonna happen. Thats why its a law. Yes, its rigid. Thats the way it is. If locked myself in an airtight box so that I cant get out, I can STRIVE to live all I want, but the physical laws of the universe are gonna catch up to me and im gonna die.

By the way, I in no way, view myself as a more advanced being than you. I am not telling you that you HAVE to "find Jesus" (as you word it). Thats your choice. I come off strong in my arguements because that what I hold dear. I am not so much a leap of faith type of guy and had to see for myself that it is true, so ive been over this (in my head, and with others) MANY times. If evolution is true, I can toss my Bible out the window or start a campfire with it, because Im just an animal, here by chance. So, I guess in a way, I DO view myself as more worthwhile than that. I believe I was created by the God of this universe for a purpose. But, I believe that about you too, so you cant say that I am looking down on you. By NO means! Do I believe that I am right and you are wrong? Yes. I believe there is a right and wrong answer to the question of us being created. Do I have all the answers? No way, not even close. But I firm in my belief that I am a created being. There has to be a right or wrong, it cant happen both ways......

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

cocoaed's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/04/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: GeneralStark
85300D-

Nope, no hostility here. I just think that we're never going to get anywhere with this discussion in terms of proving or disproving evolution. As you have stated, it is a theory.

The problem is related to perception. You and I perceive the world in very different ways. You seem to think that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution because the law states that things cannot grow more complex, instaed they go from order to disorder. The 2nd law merely deals with energy flow in the universe and in no way states that organisms can not become more complex as time progresses. You also view the world from a mechanistic perspective, where life needs a program in order to carry out basic life functions, and Gthe Divine Creator created that program.

I perceive the world from a more holistic perspective in which Natural SYstems are all inter-related and life has evolved purely on its own with no divine creator. Life strives to exist, so therefore it creates the mechanisms necessary to do so and over time becomes more complex. My perception IMO leaves room for interpretation, and a variety of possibilities in terms of how it could have all played out. This perception also leaves room to gain a better understanding of Human systems, and how our actions play a role in the greater "Gaian" system.

I see you perception as more rigid and IMO has lead to a perception of the world that is false and misguided. People have actually taken this perspective so far as to say that they are right and others are wrong. To me this is scary and can lead to situations that are documented in CocoaEd's article.

SO, no I'm not hostile, I just don't like being told that I need to find Jesus to become a more advanced being like yourself, and other right-wing Christians.

Ed,

Interesting article. Where do you stand on Right-Wing Christian ideals, and how those ideals have attempted to homogenize American and Global Culture. Is there room in the world for a diversity of views, or do we all just need to find Jesus to live righteous lives.

GeneralStark,

Well, to your question above, although I've been a Christian a long time now (24 years), the longer it has been, the more "liberal" I seem to get in my views and therefore I don't consider myself a Right-Wing Conservative Christian although Christianity is very important to me, is very much a part of who I am etc... I see Bush as a man who is more fueled by self righteousness and pride than humility and love which to me, is what Christianity is all about. He and Karl Rove (who doesn't even profess to by a Christian by the way), were very effective in getting people to vote for W. out of fear more than anything else. Fear of terrorists, fear of gays, etc... IMHO, to vote out of fear is just plain stupid.

Also (as it relates to the whole running your diesel on WVO thing), I think Bush could care less about the environment which is clearly anti-Christian. I also notice this in a lot of churches, a lot of talk about holiness etc... by obese people who throw their trash out the window and don't recycle. A complete contradiction if you ask me. The bible is clear that our bodies are temples of God and therefore we should take care of them and, we are to be good stewards of the whole earth.

Also, I think Bush is VERY WRONG in thinking that there are all these countries around the world (like Iraq) who are just waiting for us to come and "save" them. To say as Bush does that "freedom" and democracy is a God given right is just plain false. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom and I think democracy is a great thing but, no where in the bible (where Bush claims to get his inspiration from) does it say that freedom (in a political/govermental sense) is a God given right and democracy is not in the bible (although it does seem that the bible helped inspire democracy). Someone once said (can't remember who), that a country gets the l

smallfry's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/14/2004

well said, cocoaed!

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Cocoaed-

Interesting views. I have a few friends that share similiar views. I dont hang out with them anymore though (just kidding). No really, I can see your point in some of it and agree especially on your environmental views. Good stewardship is important. I am not a big environmentalist, but I do agree that we should take care of what we have, but that shouldnt be our sole concern or primier in our belief system......some of it I disagree.......especially in calling Bush out as not a true Christian. I think we (as Christians) have to be careful judging "true Christians". I also disagree with your view on Iraq, as I outlined about a half a page up.

I started to listen to the sermonettes on the site you listed. Thanks for sharing that. I only got through the first one on freedom. Not a lot of substance was said, and I assume thats because it was an introduction. I could pick up on a lot of what he stands for (and I could be wrong) and I think I like what I hear. I am very conservattive in my political views, but as far as my Christianity goes, I am pretty liberal. I am not a hands-at-my-side, anti card palying, anti-drinking, anti-fun-having, baptist (not that theres anything wrong with that :) ) or anything......so, I will continue to listen to him......hopefully I will learn something. thanks.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D,

Yes, It is difficult to resist the discussion. Especially when you continue to perpetuate widespread misconceptions of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, But, when your only source of reading regarding this law is Right-Wing Creationist Rhetoric, I guess it is not surprising. Creationists continue to misinterpret scientific knowledge and wrongly apply this body of knowledge to their theory that is based on faith, not scientific knowledge.

Your misunderstanding (and creationists') is indicated by the following statement you made:

"In a nutshell, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that all systems run from order to disorder, higher energy levels to lower energy levels."

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with systems running from order to disorder. This statement is a fallacy. The 2nd law states that energy tends to dissipate or flow downhill, and Entropy is a measure of this energy flow. Entropy has nothing to do with the order or disorder of things or systems unless you are talking about energy, which is what the Laws of Thermodynamics deal with. That is all. In relation to energy, it does become more "disorderly" in a sense, but using order and disorder to represent entropy is misleading.

Your mention of these other branches of "Thermodynamics" proves the point further that you do not understand entropy or the 2nd law and illustrates once again that there is a gross misconception in the world regarding "order" and entropy. Once again, the 2nd law in no way states that things can not become more complex or ordered, (in fact it supports this tendency in nature) it only deals with the tendency for energy to flow in one direction.

I find it interesting that you quote Jeremy Rifkin ( an economist, not an evolutionist) regarding this issue. You clearly took what he writes out of context.

It is true that the 2nd law is a grand law. However, it cannot be applied in any way to "disprove evolution". Rifkin is merely saying that our view of entropy and evolution is evolving, and we question statements that have been made in the past regarding these issues. He is also talking about progress, the mass production of material goods, and pollution being evidence of a misunderstanding of entropy.

You state that you firmly believe in your view of evolution and creationism. Perhaps, if you loosened your reigns on your reality and allowed yourself to truly understand entropy, you may see that it is not a stumbling block for evolution theory. Believing in something does not necessarily make it right.

Do some more studying of entropy (non-creationist sources) and think about it. Check out this site:
www.secondlaw.com

There is a great deal of info. on the net about entropy, and a great deal of it still uses the order to disorder metaphor. This is a common misconception.

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D,

"If the second law does not apply to order in a system, I would challenge you to present an example of an observable system that increases its complexity without an open in that system. At least an open that effects its organization and complexity.....a system that spontanously generates order."

The only way order applies to entropy is if you are dealing with energy flow. When the laws of thermodynamics were first introduced, they were based on steam engines and closed systems. These laws can be applied to open systems, however they do not behave in the same way as an engine. The 2nd law merely demonstrates "tendencies" in systems.

There are many examples of systems generating order. For insatance, the tendency for certain elements to bond to form more complex substances. It is extremely rare to find O on its own. Instead it tends to bond with other oxygen molecules, or hydrogen molecules. There are thousands of examples where in labs, scientists have demonstrated tendencies for systems to become more complex. For example, the spontaneous creation of chlorophyl.

Do some research. A great deal of the information regarding the 2nd law and entropy that has been published is outdated.

Your Isaac Asimov quote is a great example. How is it possible for a room to grow messy on its own? Don't humans have control over that system. Sure it may get "dusty" but once again that illustrates that there is really no such thing as a "closed" system in nature.

Really, look this stuff up. Google "entropy and evolution" and check out the first six links.

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D,

Here are a couple quotes from a Christian Physicist by the name of Doug Craigen, PHD. He does believe in Divine Creation, but doesn't think the old entropy argument that you continue to grasp is worth much. If you want to check out the whole article, go here http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php

"As an aid for conceptualizing entropy, it is often described as a measurement of disorder. This is not intended as a definition of either entropy or disorder. Entropy is determined by the number of ways you could achieve a state, disorder is defined by the amount of violation of an ordering rule. The assignment "entropy is disorder" is intended to describe situations such as "the more space a gas takes up, the higher its entropy is, and the less you know about where all the molecules are (which in a casual sense means more disorder)". This conceptual link between entropy and disorder should not be interpreted as saying that increased disorder is increased entropy. An example of how entropy isn't disorder is that if you take a piece of glass, which is an amorphous material (one whose atoms are disordered), and place it in a fridge to cool it down, you will not change the atom locations. The glass remains just as disordered, but its entropy decreases as its temperature drops. In fact, in a very good fridge, the closer you brought it to absolute zero (-273.15 C or -459.67 F) to closer its entropy would become to zero. This would all happen without changing its structural disorder."

"To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science."

"To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news... I'm sure I would have heard of it."

Just thought I would help with your research.

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Wow! Two posts I have to answer in a row. Your killing me. In regards to your first post:

"The only way order applies to entropy is if you are dealing with energy flow."

This is simply not true. It has everything to do with organization in a system. I had to consult the chemistry text at school to check out the formulas and criteria for spontaneous reactions. While I was thumbing through, I stumbled across a description of entropy. Now this is directly from the New York State Board of Regents- what every students in NYS is required to learn. "Entropy is the measure of the lack of organization in a system" Thats pretty simple. Does the second law deal with energy flow? Absolutely. It also deals with organization in a system.

Your examples of oxygen spontaneously bonding to hydrogen brings up a good point. We are starting now to get into the chemistry of this whole arguement so, I took a look at the formulas for spontaneous reactions. To put it in a nutshell, in order for a reaction of this sort to occur, its net free energy change MUST be negative. In other words, the reaction must be seeking a LOWER energy level. So, a system at equilibrium has no driving force because the second law dictates that energy must flow down. So, when these bonds are formed, the system sacrifices energy.

I am often brought to the example of a snow flake forming from a water droplet. Is that an increase in complexity? Well, I can see how it could be argued as such, but the fact of the matter is that while the molecular structure is becoming more ordered (as in geometric regularity), the energy level in the drop of water is spiraling downward.

Ok, now the quotes. Your physicist may be a brother, but I am disagreeing with him.....

"As an aid for conceptualizing entropy, it is often described as a measurement of disorder. This is not intended as a definition of either entropy or disorder. Entropy is determined by the number of ways you could achieve a state, disorder is defined by the amount of violation of an ordering rule. The assignment "entropy is disorder" is intended to describe situations such as "the more space a gas takes up, the higher its entropy is, and the less you know about where all the molecules are (which in a casual sense means more disorder)". This conceptual link between entropy and disorder should not be interpreted as saying that increased disorder is increased entropy. An example of how entropy isn't disorder is that if you take a piece of glass, which is an amorphous material (one whose atoms are disordered), and place it in a fridge to cool it down, you will not change the atom locations. The glass remains just as disordered, but its entropy decreases as its temperature drops. In fact, in a very good fridge, the closer you brought it to absolute zero (-273.15 C or -459.67 F) to closer its entropy would become to zero. This would all happen without changing its structural disorder."

It is my understanding, by the reading that I have done, that entropy can be increased by either a temperature change (usually increase in temps) or by an increase in disorder, or a combination of both. The chemistry book I read today confirmed this. "The solid phase, as in a crystal, is more ordered than its liquid phase. The liquid phase is more ordered than the gaseous phase, where the arrangement of particles is more random" This physicist seems to be on the opposite page than most creationist and the evolutionist who choose to not ignore the problem (and yes, there are many).

"To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative orde

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D,

Ok, before we get into specifics, I want to make sure I understand what we're discussing here, because as I said before I'm not interested in discussing evolution vs. creationism.

So, if I'm hearing you right (and feel free to chime in) you are saying the following:
1. The 2nd law of thermodynamics i.e. entropy can be applied to any system open or closed in the same way?
2. This law as it is interpreted by you and other creationists does not allow for the theory of evolution by natural selection and all those other processes to be possible.
3. In this theory of evolution that you cite, life evolved from nothing (or this is what evolutionists state).
4. The 2nd law is all encompassing so therefore can be applied to anything.

Is this what you're saying?

cocoaed's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/04/2004

General Stark,

Back on the 13th I replied to your question about Christianity as it relates to politics etc.., but did not see a response from you. What did you think?

-------------------------
free fuel on waste veggie oil! Say no to OPEC!
--Ed
Cocoa, Florida

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: GeneralStark
85300D,

Ok, before we get into specifics, I want to make sure I understand what we're discussing here, because as I said before I'm not interested in discussing evolution vs. creationism.

So, if I'm hearing you right (and feel free to chime in) you are saying the following:
1. The 2nd law of thermodynamics i.e. entropy can be applied to any system open or closed in the same way?
2. This law as it is interpreted by you and other creationists does not allow for the theory of evolution by natural selection and all those other processes to be possible.
3. In this theory of evolution that you cite, life evolved from nothing (or this is what evolutionists state).
4. The 2nd law is all encompassing so therefore can be applied to anything.

Is this what you're saying?
1. The 2nd law can be applied to an open or closed system. ALL systems have the tendancy to break down. Obviously, if the open in the system is a program to direct its growth or a mechanism for converting the sun's energy into usable energy, then the second law does not apply.

2. THe 2nd law presents the biggest problem for evolutionist in the begginning. Assuming the primoridal soup, just appeared from nowhere, how do inorganic chemicals floating in a primordial "soup", turn into the infinately intricate structures required for life? The other stuff, natural selection included can be argued on other terms.....

3. The theory of evolution I cite is the one we all learned about in science class - from goo to you......which attempts to dethrone God as the creator of the universe. If there is no God, then life evolved from nothing. If we go back farther and farther with the "what happened before that" question....eventually we get to the beginning .....nothing....

4. Im not sure what you mean by this.....obviously it doesnt apply to everything......

This whole discussion started because it was said that we have come a long ways since our founding fathers.......we are now "enlightened" to the fact that the God of the Bible is a fairy tale. Im saying - wait a minute! Not everyone has been enlightened by our new "discoveries"......as a matter of fact, these discoveries and theories that attempt to displace my God are a nothing more than a fairy tale themselves.......

Just one more point, as a side note......For those that have been enlightened since the days our founding fathers.......I expect to hear that youre at work on Thursday, because there is no need to GIVE THANKS to GOD for what he has done for us.........this is what George Washington decreed the day of Thanksgiving is for. How's that for seperation of church and state? Take the ten commandments down, but keep the holidays, right?

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

Realfry's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/01/2004

And yes the world is flat. You win! It was just collateral damage that so many had to be burnt at the stake to be convinced.
Oh wait! Was that a different time and place? Help me on this one Joan of Arc I don't remember. Oh yes, Your's was for political reasons.
I guess in some ways some things never change.

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: Realfry
And yes the world is flat. You win! It was just collateral damage that so many had to be burnt at the stake to be convinced.
Oh wait! Was that a different time and place? Help me on this one Joan of Arc I don't remember. Oh yes, Your's was for political reasons.
I guess in some ways some things never change.
Did you read the last 30 posts here? This has been the basis for our debate on thermodynamics! God hasnt changed since the founding fathers or since joan of arc or ever.....He's still there.......

So, if you want to jump in and debate like an intelligent fellow instead of insinuating ignorancy.......by all means. I think it is Rush Limbaugh who says it......"If you debate with me long enough, you'll call me names." Meaning, you'll run out of intelligent things to say before I do......man, you ran out fast.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

Realfry's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/01/2004

Yes I've read this post sence the beginning.

God! I didn't say anything about God.
Where are you at?

Oh yes. You take ridicule to such a fine level.
My intelligence stands tarnished next to yours.

"Rush" I could have guessed.

:)

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Quote:
Originally posted by: Realfry
Yes I've read this post sence the beginning.

God! I didn't say anything about God.
Where are you at?

Oh yes. You take ridicule to such a fine level.
My intelligence stands tarnished next to yours.

"Rush" I could have guessed.

:)
I took your remark about the world being flat as an insult. In argueing that many of the founding fathers were intelligent godly men, and that thanksgiving is a Godly holiday I am like those that insisted the world was flat......ignorant. Or.....I am ignorant in argueing a case against evolution.....one or the other. It was hard to understand all together, but I took it as an insult. If you didnt mean it that way, than I am sorry to jump on your case.....but I still dont get the point of your comment then.....

Im not a big Rush fan either......but I like that point he makes in debating ;)

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

Back to Entropy!

85300D,

Well, it seems that in your qualitative view of the 2nd law, you are missing the fact that this is a quantitative law. While it is true that for many years individuals have written a great deal about entropy, including statements like "entropy equals disorder" or "entropy is related to complexity or organization", this is a quantitative law and metaphors simply do not represent the definition of entropy.

For instance, entropy can be determined in a closed system at equilibrium by using the following equation:

S = Q/T
where S=Entropy, Q=heat content, and T=temperature

The following equation can be used to determine the change in Entropy in a closed system at equilibrium:
DeltaS = DeltaQ/T

These equations, once again, are mathematical so they do not allow for a metaphorical description of entropy, which is what you are talking about. In these equations, there is no place for a measurement of disorder or complexity because these terms are extremely subjective, and in science, they can not be consistently defined. Order depends a great deal upon scale, and complexity or organization are far too ambiguous or erroneous to be clearly defined.

I agree that a great many intelligent individuals have used expressions like "entropy is a measure of disorder" to try to help illustrate this concept, but the proof is in the math. Order and disorder are related to entropy on some levels, but complexity and organization are purely qualitative descriptors.

The following statement was in reference to my comment regarding the 2nd law applying only to energy flow:

85300D says:
"This is simply not true. It has everything to do with organization in a system. I had to consult the chemistry text at school to check out the formulas and criteria for spontaneous reactions. While I was thumbing through, I stumbled across a description of entropy. Now this is directly from the New York State Board of Regents- what every students in NYS is required to learn. "Entropy is the measure of the lack of organization in a system" Thats pretty simple. Does the second law deal with energy flow? Absolutely. It also deals with organization in a system."

Well, I was tortured by the regents system as I went to a public school in NY, so I'm familiar with the inadequacies of this curriculum. Once again, entropy is a measureable quantity, but organization is qualitative. I'm not saying that there aren't textbooks from around the world that have misleading descriptions of entropy. In fact they are everywhere, and the problem is that scientists, in trying to explain entropy, have mislead people to think that it is a measure of order or complexity. It simply is not, and the math proves it.

In response to my reference to spontaneous reactions, 85300D says:

"To put it in a nutshell, in order for a reaction of this sort to occur, its net free energy change MUST be negative. In other words, the reaction must be seeking a LOWER energy level. So, a system at equilibrium has no driving force because the second law dictates that energy must flow down. So, when these bonds are formed, the system sacrifices energy."

Exactly my point! It is possible, and occurs often in nature, for a system's entropy to increase while its "complexity" also increases. Thus, contrary to the creationist view, entropy can increase in a system while its complexity and geometric order increase as well. And, once the system's entropy increases, it is also possible for its entropy to decrease and return to its original state in an open system.

So, back to the math for a minute. Open systems, like those in nature, can also be mathematically described using the 2nd law. This is far more complex than a simple closed system at equilibrium, because you need to break down the system into sub-domains that can be described and measured independently. This is relatively new science that is still being tested and better understood. A great deal of this work has come from Ilya Prigogine's work with "dissipative structures".

The oth

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

GeneralStark-
Very nice. You'll have to forgive my "delay of game" as I am in the midst of getting ready to go out it town for thanksgiving. I have some good stuff off the top of my head to rebut your claims, (especially if we get more into Prigogine's stuff) but some I will have to read up on to give you a thorough rebuttal. I simply do not have the time right now. I will try to do some reading over the thansgiving break and get back to you on Monday. Get ready!

Have a good holiday.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"

GeneralStark's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/02/2004

85300D,

You are correct that we could continue around in circles regarding the 2nd law. And you're right that guys more intelligent than us have been doing so for years, and will continue to. This is what science is about, debating and discussing ideas, and attempting to explain natural phenomena with empirical evidence. And, this is why creationism does not fit into the "scientific method". It is based on belief, and not the scientific process.

Cretionists think they have the answer. Scientists attempt to look for the answer, but the answer is not necessarily the goal of the process; the quest for knowledge is the main goal. And, in this quest they adhere to a globally accepted set of standards and procedures that can be tested and re-tested by any scientist. Creationists attempt to de-bunk the scientific process, as is evident by this absurd idea that the 2nd law is a stumbling block for the theory of evolution, because their theory is based on belief, not empirical data.

Ilya Prigogine's ideas are certainly theoretical, but these ideas are a result of the scientific process, not religious belief.
I never said his ideas weren't theoretical, and I never said that they answered the question that you think you have an answer for. How did life start? Once again, I don't have the answer, and I don't think there is one that can be laid out in simple terms. However, the 2nd law is a quantitative law, and entropy is a quantitative value. You can't argue that when you are speaking in the realm of science.

I also did not say that "you can not put entropy into words". You can define entropy using words and your definition: "Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work." does a pretty good job. However a scientist in Japan and a scientist in the U.S. speak different languages, but both can understand the mathematical equations. There is absolutely no direct relationship between entropy and order, complexity, or organization. They are related, yes, but there is absolutely NO DIRECT QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIP. I would challenge you to "scientifically" state that there is.

85300D says:

"The answer to the problem is not as simplistic as you make it out to be. You cant say that entropy doesnt deal with organization becasue it doesnt fit the math equation......if that were the case, than guys like Ilya Prigogine wouldnt have bothered coming up theoretical explanations for how order might be generated spontaneously in an open system. Maybe you could give him a call and let him know that the entropy debate has been solved and the math equation has been staring us in the face for decades."

That's pretty funny, but belittling my statements doesn't scientifically prove your absurd statements about entropy. The 2nd law (and the equation I used to describe ebtropy) for a long time could only apply to closed systems at equilibrium. It is through the work of Prigogine and others, that scientists have been able to mathematically describe open systems operating far from equilibrium. That's the point! Now these systems can be mathematically described, whereas they couldn't for a long time.

So, hopefully by now you've realized that it is absurd to say that the 2nd law is a stumbling block for the theory of evolution, though I doubt it. Because your belief came first, there is no room for scientific discussion that questions that belief.

Like I said before, you are right. There is a possibility that life was created by "God", but to say that your God is the one is pretty egocentric. There are too many cultural beliefs in this world to say there is one answer and I think it is a shame to just dismiss them as wrong because Christians are so self-centered in their religion.

85300D's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/19/2004

Stark, you said:

"And, this is why creationism does not fit into the "scientific method". It is based on belief, and not the scientific process."

The theory of evolution is SO far beyond the reach of the scisntific method, it is ludicrist to bash creationism on these grounds. You cannot attribute the scientific method to either. The scientific method requires observation (did anyone observe the origin of the life?) and testing (can we test the origin of life?). I dont think so. I dont care how you want to word it, BOTH of these theories begin with presuppositions. Creation presupposes a CREATOR. Evolution presupposes that everything has come about by NATURAL means and the processes we see at work are the same processes that have been working since the beginning. THATS NOT SCIENCE. So, please stop belittling the creation theory on those grounds, because we're both in the same boat on this one.

Stark, you said:
"I also did not say that "you can not put entropy into words". You can define entropy using words and your definition: "Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work." does a pretty good job. However a scientist in Japan and a scientist in the U.S. speak different languages, but both can understand the mathematical equations. There is absolutely no direct relationship between entropy and order, complexity, or organization. They are related, yes, but there is absolutely NO DIRECT QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIP. I would challenge you to "scientifically" state that there is."

Well, actually you did say "metaphors simply do not represent the definition of entropy." I took that as an implication that you cannot describe entropy in words, only with mathenatics.

If youre asking me for another equation for entropy, I cant give you one. But putting that math equation into words to describe what it means, I can......I did. I dont understand how you can say that there is no direct relation between entropy and order, complexity, etc......it ridiculous. I dont think I've ever even heard this ANYWHERE from ANYONE...ever.....and I have talked to many scientists on both sides of the fence on this issue. Are you trying to imply that because there is no variable fot order or complexity in the math equation, then entropy cannot be described as such.....???? Prigogines whole point of his theories was to show how ORDER can develop spontaneously!

Like I said repeatedly, if it happened, by all means.....share. HOW COULD life have spontaneasly arose from the "soup"? Also, i would like to hear your take on the irriduceable complexity issue.....

Stark, you said:
"Like I said before, you are right. There is a possibility that life was created by "God", but to say that your God is the one is pretty egocentric. There are too many cultural beliefs in this world to say there is one answer and I think it is a shame to just dismiss them as wrong because Christians are so self-centered in their religion."

Of course there is a possibility! Its ridiculous (and unscientific) to think otherwise! I believe that my God is the way......thats my belief. I believe it, without doubt, because that has supernaturally been revealed to me. THere are many cultural beliefs on God, but they cant ALL be right. JESUS said, "I am the way, the truth, and the Life, NO MAN comes to father but by me." Those arent MY words, its not me that youre calling egocentric, or self centered......its Jesus. He is the One that says that all other Gods are false....I just believe Him. He's the One that suffered an incredibly cruel death on the cross to save me from my sin. If I could find God through Buddha, or Allah, than His death is in vane. These are my beliefs........ but we dont even have to bring that into a discussion on origins.

-------------------------
85 300D - Heated 2 tank system "family mobile"
69 Pontiac GTO - "the show"
96 WS6 Formula - 11.9 @122mph "the go"