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

[Techno2000]

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.

And all life returns back to God from where it came.

 

[Rubee]

You know evolution is true. Do you include “randomness” in your sense of it? That’s the part I call balloney. It seems to me like a claim of magic. Kinda like what Steven Hawking tried to do with the “Gravity made the universe from nothing before Gravity was a thing.”

I have no problem with the idea that God created everything alive through evolution. I have massive problems with the notion that it happened randomly. Show me complex, intelligent things happening “randomly” elsewhere in nature, and you’ll have yourself a convert.

 

[Techno2000]

You know evolution is true. Do you include “randomness” in your sense of it? That’s the part I call balloney. It seems to me like a claim of magic. Kinda like what Steven Hawking tried to do with the “Gravity made the universe from nothing before Gravity was a thing.”

I have no problem with the idea that God created everything alive through evolution. I have massive problems with the notion that it happened randomly. Show me complex, intelligent things happening “randomly” elsewhere in nature, and you’ll have yourself a convert.

Did God have to use evolution to create the fish, loaves and wine?

 

[Rubee]

No. Me, I’m open to both ideas of God using evolution and interjecting at various points etc I don’t mind it. I do mind magical claims, however, no matter how widely believed they are by scientists. Scientists don’t get to escape logic just by having the label ‘scientist’. If someone is claiming all this happened randomly, they are claiming magic, pure and simple.

In addition, show me the magical random process that turns dead elements into a living organism in the first place. It’s no different than claiming resurrection, yet a good bunch of them will laugh at the religious notion of giving life to dead material when you call it ‘resurrection’.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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.

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.

See my respose to Rossum if you are interested in a conversation.

A conversation needs (name removed by moderator)ut from at least two people. The conversation must stop when any of those taking part puts forward something to bolster his or her argument that is plainly wrong. Otherwise what follows is based on incorrect information.

I cannot continue a conversation with you on entropy if you insist on it being a constant. Anything that you state from that point on based on that misunderstanding will be worthless.

I assume that you understand that. Just as if you wanted to discuss geology and wanted to claim that the planet is 6,000 years old. Further discussion on that basis is futile.

So what you need to do is accept that in this matter you are wrong, for whatever reason you might want to give, and then the conversation moves on.

This thread is an excellent example of people not accepting basic scientific principles and carrying on arguments that are based on incorrect statements. So if you want to be honest, then simply correct what you have stated. I mean, how difficult can it be…?

 

[Rubee]

What does it matter whether you label it a ‘constant’ or not? Just give me an example of something else defying entropy except through an intelligent process, and your point is made.

 

[buffalo]

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?

Asked and answered so many times: Empirical Evidence

 

[buffalo]

Entropy is not a constant.

I think he meant it is a norm.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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?

Asked and answered so many times: Empirical Evidence

Then you indicate again what little you know of the scientific process. Evidence is what any given person uses to formuate a theory. If you have two theories, then both have access to the same evidence. But one will be a better explanation for that evidence than the other.

So it’s not that Creationism has different or better evidence. They are using exactly the same information as everyone else. They then propose their theory which purports to explain that evidence.

So your answer is no answer at all. In fact, it shows that you don’t understand the basis on which the question was asked. So I’ll ask it yet again:

Apart from personal opinion, on what basis do you determine that one thery is better than another?

 

[buffalo]

Apart from personal opinion, on what basis do you determine that one thery is better than another?

The one that has empirical evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Entropy is not a constant.

I think he meant it is a norm.

Which is a meaningless concept. But he didn’t say ‘norm’ in any case. He said ‘constant’. Maybe he didn’t really know what a constant is. Maybe he’ll tell us that so we’ll know why he said it. Until that time, and in fact after that time, what he said was monstrously wrong and it needs to be acknowledged.

 

[buffalo]

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

That is not what you actually did.

 

[buffalo]

But the environment is not a closed system. So what does that mean for your argument?

Is the solar system closed?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Apart from personal opinion, on what basis do you determine that one thery is better than another?

The one that has empirical evidence.

Uh? I had to check to make sure that was a different post. because you just said exactly the same thing when it was just pointed out that all parties have access to the same evidence. It’s not that onse side suddenly cries ‘Eureka’ and produces a magical creationist bunny out of fundamentalist’s hat. They have the same evidence! Evidence cannot therefore be used to differentiate between theories.

Do you not understand any of this?

 

[buffalo]

Uh? I had to check to make sure that was a different post. because you just said exactly the same thing when it was just pointed out that all parties have access to the same evidence. It’s not that onse side suddenly cries ‘Eureka’ and produces a magical creationist bunny out of fundamentalist’s hat. They have the same evidence! Evidence cannot therefore be used to differentiate between theories.

Do you not understand any of this?

Do they really? There are some who outright reject any evidence that is contrary to their view. They a priori rule it out. Methodological naturalism is one case.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But the environment is not a closed system. So what does that mean for your argument?

Is the solar system closed?

It’s hierarchic. Effectively closed as regards what it contains but some energy is exchanged between it and the rest of the galaxy.

If you have a point (as well as asking the question you have been asked multiple times), why not make it?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Uh? I had to check to make sure that was a different post. because you just said exactly the same thing when it was just pointed out that all parties have access to the same evidence. It’s not that onse side suddenly cries ‘Eureka’ and produces a magical creationist bunny out of fundamentalist’s hat. They have the same evidence! Evidence cannot therefore be used to differentiate between theories.

Do you not understand any of this?

Do they really? There are some who outright reject any evidence that is contrary to their view. They a priori rule it out. Methodological naturalism is one case.

You really don’t understand this.

Evidence is evidence. The explanation for whether it is acceptable or whether it relates to or is germane to a theory forms part of that theory. It is, to all intents and purposes, the theory itself: ‘Here is some evidence, my theory says X about it’.

Yet again, apart from personal opinion, now you know that any given theory can accept or reject evidence for sound scientific reasoning, how do you determine the theory that best explains the evidence?

 

[Bradskii]

What does it matter whether you label it a ‘constant’ or not?

It matters because it is wrong.

Just give me an example of something else defying entropy except through an intelligent process, and your point is made.

Something else defying entropy? What was mentioned that could possibly do that?

Unless something is in a state of equilibrium then entropy is either increasing or decreaing. Do you want an example of something in equilibrium? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you understand the term.

 

[buffalo]

Evidence is evidence.

It should be, but not always is.

Hmmm - some evidence is tainted. many papers remove evidence that does not fit the expectations. Peer review has many issues right now.

Once again, empirical evidence, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.

Now, if we can look at the same evidence and can both agree what it means we can go forward. ( the evidence still could be wrong) Add in the fact science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and is provisional and it makes it more challenging. As I mentioned before your view of the evidence is very limited because you will not admit to formal and final causes.

 

[buffalo]

Unless something is in a state of equilibrium

You well know that entropy is always increasing disorder even though there may be local pockets that are in equilibrium. Is your argument the solar system is in equlibrium?