Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy ?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system.

Great.

Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?

You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.

So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.

Do you get it yet?

Listen, I don't believe the current theory of evolution is even possible let alone ever happened. I believe small changes happened but only because the genetic data for these small changes already existed in our genome.

I believe there are limits to adapting to the environment and that is why the extinction list is so long.

Which confirms my suspicion that the various science disciplines that corroborate evilution are nothing more than a global conspiracy among those atheistic evilutionist scientists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It would be irresponsible to let him move forward, completely misrepresenting the 2nd law.

Not from what I have been reading. Hell I have even quoted people on your side agreeing with me.

Give me an example of any organism reducing entropy ?

You haven't defined the system.

It also doesn't really matter because your assumed premise for the question is faulty from the outset.

You're the one making the claim that certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy, and I am asking you of an example of a living organism that can do as you claim. So do you have evidence or is this just making an explanation up to fend off the hordes of critics ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It simply never meant "dissorder". There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics. The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately. Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent. When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added. The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder". "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped. A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D. So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it. Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".

Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.

Who is "you people"?

The group trying to build themselves up while trying to smear others and discredit competing theories. This is an argument used to discredit ID and creationism because we both accept the things that show order within our universe but we also acknowledge we are living in a system suffering from dissorder as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It simply never meant "dissorder". There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics. The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately. Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent. When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added. The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder". "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped. A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D. So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it. Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".

Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.

Now that I think of it, I had never heard of this concept that entropy means "dissorder" until you said it, apperently drawing it from some Creationist "proof".

Entropy

(Science: radiobiology) The amount of disorder in a system.

Entropy - definition from Biology-Online.org

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.

 

[Hollie]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.

Oh my, the angry fundamentalist has laid down the gauntlet.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.

You alleged experience is belied by the ignorance readily apparent in your posts.

 

[itfitzme]

Not from what I have been reading. Hell I have even quoted people on your side agreeing with me.

Give me an example of any organism reducing entropy ?

You haven't defined the system.

It also doesn't really matter because your assumed premise for the question is faulty from the outset.

You're the one making the claim that certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy, and I am asking you of an example of a living organism that can do as you claim. So do you have evidence or is this just making an explanation up to fend off the hordes of critics ?

I am fairly certain I never made such a statement. I don't usually make general statements. I can say that the combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics yields a behavior for certain systems by which energy is transformed into work. I can say that living organisms maintain their entropy by drawing on external resources, at least for as long as they can, and managing to spin of a "child" before nature gets the best of them.

"certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy" doesn't sound like a statement I'd make, especially in conversation with you as your definition of entropy includes "dissorder" making any discussion of the entropy of systems rather meaningless given your incorrect understanding of it.

I think, perhaps, you've simply lost any capacity to know what I personally have said or think, the moment you put me into a category of "you people".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.

You alleged experience is belied by the ignorance readily apparent in your posts.

This observation is accurate or it may seem to be the case because you have been brainwashed in to believing things you can't defend. It is very easy to point out the benefits of mutations, sarcasm intended.

You can't run from reality, it always catches up with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You haven't defined the system.

It also doesn't really matter because your assumed premise for the question is faulty from the outset.

You're the one making the claim that certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy, and I am asking you of an example of a living organism that can do as you claim. So do you have evidence or is this just making an explanation up to fend off the hordes of critics ?

I am fairly certain I never made such a statement.

Sorry should not have lumped you all together. The creationist thread is full of this argument once purposeful design was mentioned.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.

You alleged experience is belied by the ignorance readily apparent in your posts.

This observation is accurate or it may seem to be the case because you have been brainwashed in to believing things you can't defend. It is very easy to point out the benefits of mutations, sarcasm intended.

You can't run from reality, it always catches up with you.

Ironic coming from the epitome of creationist brainwashed believers.

 

[Hollie]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.

You alleged experience is belied by the ignorance readily apparent in your posts.

This observation is accurate or it may seem to be the case because you have been brainwashed in to believing things you can't defend. It is very easy to point out the benefits of mutations, sarcasm intended.

You can't run from reality, it always catches up with you.

Well, yeah. Anyone who hasn't accepted the majority religion of the socio-political / geographic region of their birth is obviously brainwashed.

 

[itfitzme]

Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.

Now that I think of it, I had never heard of this concept that entropy means "dissorder" until you said it, apperently drawing it from some Creationist "proof".

Entropy

(Science: radiobiology) The amount of disorder in a system.

Entropy - definition from Biology-Online.org

Well, just goes to show you, if you look hard enough, you can always find someone that has screwed things up.

I don't see any formal definition of measurememt with that incorrect colloquial definition, no Boltman constant, no formal description if what is being measured. It's a rather meaningless website.

I'm pretty sure I already presented this

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Entropy

and Lambert's website.

So you seem to be the one that continues to disseminate incorrect information.

 

[YWN666]

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ?

I was just going to say the same thing to you. You are either clueless or self-deluded.

 

[Hollie]

Now that I think of it, I had never heard of this concept that entropy means "dissorder" until you said it, apperently drawing it from some Creationist "proof".

Entropy

(Science: radiobiology) The amount of disorder in a system.

Entropy - definition from Biology-Online.org

Well, just goes to show you, if you look hard enough, you can always find someone that has screwed things up.

I don't see any formal definition of measurememt with that incorrect colloquial definition, no Boltman constant, no formal description if what is being measured. It's a rather meaningless website.

You go, boy.

While the web can be an invaluable source of information, it can also be a playground for cut and pasters such as ywc.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You haven't defined the system.

It also doesn't really matter because your assumed premise for the question is faulty from the outset.

You're the one making the claim that certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy, and I am asking you of an example of a living organism that can do as you claim. So do you have evidence or is this just making an explanation up to fend off the hordes of critics ?

I am fairly certain I never made such a statement. I don't usually make general statements. I can say that the combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics yields a behavior for certain systems by which energy is transformed into work. I can say that living organisms maintain their entropy by drawing on external resources.

"certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy" doesn't sound like a statement I'd make, especially in conversation with you as your definition of entropy includes "dissorder" making any discussion of the entropy of systems rather meaningless given your incorrect understanding of it.

I want to know more about and what are these system possessing the ability decrease dissorder. We have a universe experiencing decay and everything in it.

Living organisms are experiencing genetic decay that is threatening the survival of animal, human populations,and plant populations. What is the cause of this genetic decay ? No Natural selection can’t prevent this genetic decay because the majority of mutations are recessive and can find their way in to a population through hidden carriers, rarely showing up as the double recessive that can be attacked by natural selection.This is a problem for what your theory calls for but this is reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy ?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system.

Great.

Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?

You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.

So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.

Do you get it yet?

Listen, I don't believe the current theory of evolution is even possible let alone ever happened. I believe small changes happened but only because the genetic data for these small changes already existed in our genome.

I believe there are limits to adapting to the environment and that is why the extinction list is so long.

That's awesome.
So have you given up on the 2nd Law silliness?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy ?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system.

Great.

Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?

You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.

So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.

Do you get it yet?

Listen, I don't believe the current theory of evolution is even possible let alone ever happened. I believe small changes happened but only because the genetic data for these small changes already existed in our genome.

I believe there are limits to adapting to the environment and that is why the extinction list is so long.

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand genetics and evolution at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're the one making the claim that certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy, and I am asking you of an example of a living organism that can do as you claim. So do you have evidence or is this just making an explanation up to fend off the hordes of critics ?

I am fairly certain I never made such a statement. I don't usually make general statements. I can say that the combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics yields a behavior for certain systems by which energy is transformed into work. I can say that living organisms maintain their entropy by drawing on external resources.

"certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy" doesn't sound like a statement I'd make, especially in conversation with you as your definition of entropy includes "dissorder" making any discussion of the entropy of systems rather meaningless given your incorrect understanding of it.

I want to know more about and what are these system possessing the ability decrease dissorder. We have a universe experiencing decay and everything in it.

Living organisms are experiencing genetic decay that is threatening the survival of animal, human populations,and plant populations. What is the cause of this genetic decay ? No Natural selection can’t prevent this genetic decay because the majority of mutations are recessive and can find their way in to a population through hidden carriers, rarely showing up as the double recessive that can be attacked by natural selection.This is a problem for what your theory calls for but this is reality.

I want to know more about and what are these system possessing the ability decrease dissorder.

Plant a seed. Add water. Place in sunlight.

The plant will decrease disorder. It will turn CO2 and H2O into a nice structure of cellulose.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now that I think of it, I had never heard of this concept that entropy means "dissorder" until you said it, apperently drawing it from some Creationist "proof".

Entropy

(Science: radiobiology) The amount of disorder in a system.

Entropy - definition from Biology-Online.org

Well, just goes to show you, if you look hard enough, you can always find someone that has screwed things up.

I don't see any formal definition of measurememt with that incorrect colloquial definition, no Boltman constant, no formal description if what is being measured. It's a rather meaningless website.

I'm pretty sure I already presented this

Entropy - Scholarpedia

and Lambert's website.

So you seem to be the one that continues to disseminate incorrect information.

They can play with all the calculus they want,they can't determine the level of dissorder in a system. You would have to have an accurate amount of order and dissorder at the point of origins.