Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
Obviously, the principle of entropy, in keeping with the law of thermodynamics is everywhere or else a fridge in one part of the universe wouldn’t work.
Click to expand...
You are talking about different things here. Your earlier post said “Entropy can be said to be a property or constant” now you are talking about entropy as a “principle”.

Entropy is a property. It is not, in general, constant. It was the “constant” part I was criticising.

I am not sure what you mean by “principle” in this context. Entropy is a non-constant property of matter.
 
Aloysium said:
There are serious problems with communication that I attribute primarily. to simple arguentative temperaments.

Obviously, the principle of entropy, in keeping with the law of thermodynamics is everywhere or else a fridge in one part of the universe wouldn’t work.
Click to expand...
In the Trump era, when a wall is not a wall if if it’s a fence and facts are variable and ‘truth is not truth’, to have you not use the term ‘constant’ when referring to entropy could be classed as a step in the right direction. But it’s not.

Obfuscation is par for the course in this thread. And always used by those who have a serious lack of knowledge of the matter in hand. So let’s see if we can have some honesty.

Is entropy a constant?

Now the only answer to that question is ‘No’. But feel free, after you have answered it honestly, to use any excuse you would care to try on to explain why you got it so blazingly wrong in the first instance - not my area of expertise, I was given wrong information, I was confused about the terminology, we can’t all be scientific experts, the dog eat my homework…pick any one you like. But let’s strive for an honest reply in the first instance.
 
edwest said:
“the Trump era”
Click to expand...
You bet. If the POTUS can bend facts, repeat falshoods even when they are shown to be false, tell outright lies and obfuscate and ignore facts and disregard the truth, then why can’t anyone do it?

It’s now what most people expect. It’s the norm. It used to be said that everyone could have their 15 minutes of fame. But now all you need is an internet connection and you can make it last as long as you like. With a demand that you deserve equal time and the same consideration as anyone else.

And when the questions become too hard…simply ignore them. Eh, @buffalo?
 
Last edited:
I expect normal to be the norm. And it’s not just me.

P.S.
I’m not buffalo.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says so. Living organisms rely on an energy flow to counter entropy. An energy flow is not static.
Click to expand...
And this is the scientific law that says a bacteria will not remain a bacteria (ie, a static entity) but will change and evolve into all the life forms that have existed on earth? I don’t think so.
 
Last edited:
stoplooklisten said:
What is it about flamingos that made it the winner of the “survival of the fittest” contest for species most likely to survive “natural selection”?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamingo#/media/File:Flamingos_Laguna_Colorada.jpg

Where are all the runner-up flamingo designs produced by “random mutations”?
Click to expand...
They are on the Island of Misfit Plants and Animals… right next to the Island of Misfit Toys.

 
Who are we, mere humans, to say that critters weren’t created with the ability to change and adapt?

Does evolution exist? Yep.

Can you “force” evolution? Yep. Been there, done that, with bacteria during grad school.

I don’t think that evolution is true, I know that evolution is true. And, I went from destroying the copy of the Bible I had and living as an atheist for over a decade to joining the Church in the middle of this month. Really wish that people would move on from this argument.
 
Edgar said:
And this is the scientific law that says a bacteria will not remain a bacteria (ie, a static entity) but will change and evolve into all the life forms that have existed on earth? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
The second law of thermodynamics is not evolution. Evolution is not the second law of thermodynamics. You are confusing two different concepts.

You might want to consider that if a gross misconception like this is the best defence you can put up, then the position you are defending might possibly be wrong.
 
Last edited:
edwest said:
Bacteria stay bacteria.
Click to expand...
This is the equivalent of bringing a snowball into congress and saying: ‘Global warming? Hah!’ It really is as nonsensical.

And you would expect someone with zero knowledge of the subject to come up with such a comment. At a superficial level it serves to convince others with equally limited knowledge that you are right (if there’s global warming, how come it’s snowing… if we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys… if bacteria have evolved so much, how come they’re still bacteria).

Whereas people with more knowledge know that you are simply exhibiting a lack of knowledge.

OK. Fair enough. Not everyone knows everything. And, again on a superficial level, just like the snowball, it appears to have some basis in fact. But just as people who actually know about matters such as this no doubt pointed out to Inhofe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...as-disproven-climate-change-once-and-for-all/) that he was not proving a point but exhibiting ignorance, so some on this thread (mostly rossum, who has the patience of a saint), have pointed out to you that you are doing the same.

And this is what has me despairing for the possibility of a reasonable debate. Not just on this thread but in all matters where there is a difference of opinion. Because what do you do when this is pointed out? Do you check to see where you have gone wrong? Do you investigate further? Do you educate yourself on this particular aspect of biology? Do you even quietly let it slide and not bring it up again?

No. You double down. Far from gaining some knowledge, you reject it. Instead of investigating further and adjusting your argument so that it matches the facts, you ignore the facts and simply keep on repeating the same error. Again. And again.

And I don’t know why. For the life of me I cannot work it out. Maybe you could shed some light on it.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Aloysium:
Obviously, the principle of entropy, in keeping with the law of thermodynamics is everywhere or else a fridge in one part of the universe wouldn’t work.
Click to expand...
You are talking about different things here. Your earlier post said “Entropy can be said to be a property or constant” now you are talking about entropy as a “principle”.

Entropy is a property. It is not, in general, constant. It was the “constant” part I was criticising.

I am not sure what you mean by “principle” in this context. Entropy is a non-constant property of matter.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to reduce my word count and time spent formulating a reply. Sorry for the confusion.

Hopefully, somebody will read this so it serves some purpose. It may be a review but the perspective is likely different than the reader is accustomed to.

Let’s start with the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the energy in the universe is always constant, and the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy may not be created or destroyed; it can only change in its position and form. So, overall and in every particular case the basic stuff of the universe, energy, is not coming or going, but although constantly being in a state of transformation, the total of which remains unchanged since it first came into existence.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that with every spontaneous reaction, matter will always go from its given state of organization to a more disorganized state.

Remember I’m one of the “devolution” guys.

From the time it was created as it is now, which I see as the fall, everything is becoming more disorganized. That’s what the “principle” of entropy was meant to convey in my earlier ramblings. Creation brought into existence first the building blocks of the universe, and the flow of energy was part of that initial state. That basic stuff, after being further organized into molecules, was brought together in a new creation, that of life as single cells. From there, plants, then animals, all of different kinds entered into the universe as forms of being, showing greater complexity in their being each one individual thing participating within their environment. Then we have ourselves, the crown of this creation, who would know our Maker and share in His glory.

Were we in harmony with the Source of existence, there would be a different law in place. The universe is on a journey to death and its salvation is to be found in transcendence, to the reestablishment of the natural order as it was meant to be.

In summary, reactions that happen spontaneously, meaning that they are not forced to happen by adding energy, result in greater disorganization. This will continue and eventually life will no longer exist. So, yes, the entropy, or the disorganization of the matter in the universe is always increasing; this principle does not change.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that with every spontaneous reaction, matter will always go from its given state of organization to a more disorganized state.
Click to expand...
The total entropy of a sytem will increase. But the environment is not a closed system. So what does that mean for your argument?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
Seeksadvice:
I don’t think that evolution is true, I know that evolution is true.
Click to expand...
I know it isn’t. Go figure.
Click to expand...
So here is the question that @buffalo refuses to answer: Discounting personal preference, by what criteria do you decide which theory is the better one at describing available evidence?
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Aloysium:
There are serious problems with communication that I attribute primarily. to simple arguentative temperaments.

Obviously, the principle of entropy, in keeping with the law of thermodynamics is everywhere or else a fridge in one part of the universe wouldn’t work.
Click to expand...
In the Trump era, when a wall is not a wall if if it’s a fence and facts are variable and ‘truth is not truth’, to have you not use the term ‘constant’ when referring to entropy could be classed as a step in the right direction. But it’s not.

Obfuscation is par for the course in this thread. And always used by those who have a serious lack of knowledge of the matter in hand. So let’s see if we can have some honesty.

Is entropy a constant?

Now the only answer to that question is ‘No’. But feel free, after you have answered it honestly, to use any excuse you would care to try on to explain why you got it so blazingly wrong in the first instance - not my area of expertise, I was given wrong information, I was confused about the terminology, we can’t all be scientific experts, the dog eat my homework…pick any one you like. But let’s strive for an honest reply in the first instance.
Click to expand...
See my respose to Rossum if you are interested in a conversation.

When one starts pointing out contradictions in a person’s story, of which they are unaware and wish to remain so, the usual response one gets is “Why are you trying to confuse me.” Obfuscation in this situation is in the mind of the listener. You don’t want to hear how God is at the Centre of all this, always was and will be.

I always strive for honesty and expect the same of others.

I also expect people to discuss the topic and not each other. I wish you would comply, but then you are choosing to use this thread to speak about what you really want, and usually, from what I read it is not the OP. I am also not doing so here in order to bring the level of this conversation up to what it should be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top