A challenge to creationists

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Life is entropy in reverse.

The 2nd law of thermo states that the entropy of the UNIVERSE is always constant or increasing. It's ok to have localized decreases in entropy.

We are all engines of karma

[pirana 0]

Quote

Well actually extremely unlike in our Universe is still very likely. Given that we are the 3rd rock from the sun, and the Temp zone for life is quite narrow (lucky earth is in it)

if you look at how many stars are in our galaxy, there are million and millions of opportunites for other planets to be in the same life zone as earth on all of the other stars in our galaxy. Now think that there are million and millions of other gallaxies, each with their own million and millons of stars and even if the chance of life on othher planets is one in a BILLION you still have billions of stars to have millions of chances.

Now one of the biggest limiting factors in this equation is OUR undertanding of what constitutes life. Would we know it if we see it, if it does not resemble what we know as life on Earth?

You're alluding to that axiom that given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen, will happen. Put in that corner, I'd probably go back to saying impossible; only because I think the dynamic nature of nature will not allow for life forms that can not unconciously adapt.

Those equations for determining the likelihood of life are pretty meaningless, nothing short of mental masturbation since some of the variables have such a huge range and are essentially unknown. The entire Universe is looking to be very dynamic (over the long haul anyway) and no matter where life were to form, without something like DNA or a similar means to effect change that supercedes the death of individuals, it will not survive. There is no place in the Universe (based on current knowledge) that is so static that an entity could survive forever without being equipped for adaptation.

Life IS about change and the creation of pockets of order.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Life is entropy in reverse.

The 2nd law of thermo states that the entropy of the UNIVERSE is always constant are increasing. It's ok to have localized decreases in entropy.

You'll need to confirm so I know precisely what you are saying here.

Did you mean "or increasing"?

If so, then yes, I understand that. Overall, the level of entropy is constantly increasing, with pockets of decreasing entropy. (With of course all energy being conserved). Because of the expansion of the Universe, I would also contend that the level of order and level of entropy can not be stable, or remain the same. We are constantly expanding, cooling, loosing order, and experiencing the spreading out of all energy over an ever increasing amount of space.

New term: Universal Cooling. Al Gore won't like that.

My assertion is that life always represents one of those pockets, and that without life, the pockets will eventually disappear as the Universe ends in an inevitable heat death.

Because Life is the Universe's only means of self-recognition, it's Universal Mind, once order and energy are so spread out that entropy is nearly complete, there will be no recognition of the Universe, followed by it outright going out of existence when the temperature hits absolute zero.

I've read this might be imposible, that in a finite but ever-expanding unbounded Universe, the temperature would constantly be decreasing but never actually reach absolutre zero. In that scenario the Universe never ends; but just keeps getting bigger, thinner, colder, and less ordered (like it matters once the average distance between elementary particles reaches a billion light years or so).

Yes, it is a slow day.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 3,114]

>The point I am making is that nothing can continue its life cycle
>unless that ability is fully formed in them from the very beginning.
>Without it everything would die off after the first generation.

Right. But a single strand of RNA can reproduce itself, without any sex organs, reproductive organs or enzymes. And that's all you need to start the process.

[billvon 3,114]

>There are (at least) TWO types of creationist.

Fair point. There are a lot of kinds of creationists, and some that straddle the line between creationism and evolution. The sort I've seen are, from the religious to the science end are:

(most religious)
-Flat earthers/Geocentrists
-Young earth creationists (YEC's)
-Old earth creationists (OEC's)
-Progressive creationists (i.e. intelligent design)
-Theistic evolutionists
-Physical evolutionists
-Religious-atheist evolutionists
(least religious)

The geocentists, YEC's and OEC's are the sort I'm talking about here.

I should also point out that there is a sort of "creationist" who has no particular theory on how the earth was created or how life began. They merely seek to discredit evolutionary science while offering nothing in its place. They see it as a "battle" between religion and science, and if they can destroy/discredit science religion will "win." They will often espouse multiple conflicting opinions, such as "radiocarbon dating on this one fossil says it's ten million years out of place and I can prove it" and "fossils don't really exist" and "radiocarbon dating doesn't work at all." Generally they're not worth taking seriously.

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Quote

Steveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers"
It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it

That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so.

So you choose to hold a position that you admit you cannot justify (other than internally within your own head).

If that's faith, then faith equals voluntary ignorance.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[pirana 0]

Quote

I should also point out that there is a sort of "creationist" who has no particular theory on how the earth was created or how life began. They merely seek to discredit evolutionary science while offering nothing in its place. They see it as a "battle" between religion and science, and if they can destroy/discredit science religion will "win." They will often espouse multiple conflicting opinions, such as "radiocarbon dating on this one fossil says it's ten million years out of place and I can prove it" and "fossils don't really exist" and "radiocarbon dating doesn't work at all." Generally they're not worth taking seriously.

Until they show up at school board meetings demanding equal time in the Science class or "Evolution is just a theory" stickers in the textbooks.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 3,114]

>So you choose to hold a position that you admit you cannot justify
>(other than internally within your own head).

Pretty common nowadays. People keep all their money in a bank, even though they don't know how computers work, how their money will be stored, or how their money is insured by the government (if at all.) They just have faith that it will always be there - even though history has shown that banks DO fail with great regularity.

People get on airplanes even if they don't understand aerodynamics - and even if they crash sometimes. People get on elevators even if they don't understand Maxwell's Equations.

I don't see anything wrong with someone believing in something they don't quite understand.

[Scoop 0]

We had one lad at out school that was excused all the biology lessons that explained about evolution because it was against his familiy's belief. He was a baptist, I wasn't aware they were so extreme in their ideas

[Skyrad 0]

*Opens door, peaks in winces, and closes the door softly again*

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Steveo, you forgot about the NEW BREED of Looney, "The Intelligent Designers"
It's complex so therefore, GOD MUST have designed it

That's a straw man you have created. Most ID guys belief's are not that simple. While I "believe" in ID, I prefer not to debate it as I'm not adequately equipped to do so.

So you choose to hold a position that you admit you cannot justify (other than internally within your own head).

If that's faith, then faith equals voluntary ignorance.

Actually, I'm more of a theistic evolutionist. I do not discount evolution at all, so therefore, I need not debate it. I believe in ID (God) but I recognize it rquires an element of faith. To me faith is not something to be argued.

Sure there are those who will do that on both sides of the issue, but I feel "inadequate" to debate "faith" issues with those who require scientific proof. Faith by the very definition the bible gives it (Hebrews 11:1) does not require scientific proof. It ends up being a cyclical argument and is a waste of time.

Christ has challenged me (and other followers) to be the salt of the earth. Hopefully, like salt, I can both create thirst (for spiritual truth), and season my world. However salt crammed down someone's throat is not tasty.

steveOrino

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

c) if it reproduced magically, without any discernible storage of phylogenic information, it would mean one of two things. Either
1) we don't understand as much about biology as we thought or
2) there was some sort of divine intervention.

I think we can safely assume that we've only scratched the surface of what there is to know about biology, so to find a new life form that doesn't fit into our current knowledge shouldn't come as a big surprise.

And finding a new type of life form--no matter how it reproduces--will in no way prove that there is divine intervention.

You're sounding like the creationist/intelligent design people: It's so complex, and we can't explain it; therefore, it must have been created by something more intelligent than us, or there must have been divine intervention.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

You're sounding like the creationist/intelligent design people: It's so complex, and we can't explain it; therefore, it must have been created by something more intelligent than us, or there must have been divine intervention.

How did you reach that conclusion? He gave an OR relationship

We don't understand enough biology to explain it (the one I am inclined to believe bill would go with)

OR

There was divine intervention.

He did not say that because we cannot explain it, that it must be divine intervention. He just said those are the only two possibilities. And they are.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,114]

>You're sounding like the creationist/intelligent design people . . .

I wish you people would make up your mind! One minute I'm a liberal secular religion-hater, the next I'm a creationist . . . .

"It's so complex and we can't explain it" would mean that we don't have the science yet to explain it. "It's impossible without violating laws of physics" would be a different story. Either we'd have to discard most of what we understand about physics or accept some other way that it's happening.

Right now there's no scientific evidence that God existed, or ever did. That may not always be true. I don't know if that will ever change, but that remains to be seen.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Did you mean "or increasing"?

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for catching my finger-burp.

We are all engines of karma

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I wish you people would make up your mind! One minute I'm a liberal secular religion-hater, the next I'm a creationist . . . .

Or perhaps you need to make up your mind. You can only be a blind religious freak or a religious-freak-hating atheist. There is nothing in between.

Quote

"It's impossible without violating laws of physics" would be a different story. Either we'd have to discard most of what we understand about physics or accept some other way that it's happening.

Right. And deciding that it must be divine intervention would be a cop-out.

I seriously doubt that there is any way to prove the existence of God, but I agree that that remains to be seen.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

New term: Universal Cooling. Al Gore won't like that.

My assertion is that life always represents one of those pockets, and that without life, the pockets will eventually disappear as the Universe ends in an inevitable heat death.

Because Life is the Universe's only means of self-recognition, it's Universal Mind, once order and energy are so spread out that entropy is nearly complete, there will be no recognition of the Universe, followed by it outright going out of existence when the temperature hits absolute zero.

I've read this might be imposible, that in a finite but ever-expanding unbounded Universe, the temperature would constantly be decreasing but never actually reach absolutre zero. In that scenario the Universe never ends; but just keeps getting bigger, thinner, colder, and less ordered (like it matters once the average distance between elementary particles reaches a billion light years or so).

Interesting new phrase. I like it. I think the overall assessment, while consistent, is a bit depressing. Why don't you join my "God and the 1st Law Of Thermo" discussion, as it evolves? Could be fun

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...prove the existence of God...

For day-to-day life, why bother?

We are all engines of karma

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

...prove the existence of God...

For day-to-day life, why bother?

I have no reason to bother, as I do not believe in any sort of god. And those who do believe in a god shouldn't have any reason to bother either, as it should only matter to them.

[beowulf 1]

Bill! don't you understand that all the proof needed is the Bible???!

That should be clear by now.

[billvon 3,114]

> . . .all the proof needed is the Bible???!

True, I guess it's a proven historical biblical fact.

[pirana 0]

Quote

We had one lad at out school that was excused all the biology lessons that explained about evolution because it was against his familiy's belief. He was a baptist, I wasn't aware they were so extreme in their ideas

I wish I would have thought of that when they made us guys take Home Ec in 7th grade. I should have told them that according to my family's religious beliefs, that it was forbidden for men to do woman's work.

Go ahead, slap me.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

New term: Universal Cooling. Al Gore won't like that.

My assertion is that life always represents one of those pockets, and that without life, the pockets will eventually disappear as the Universe ends in an inevitable heat death.

Because Life is the Universe's only means of self-recognition, it's Universal Mind, once order and energy are so spread out that entropy is nearly complete, there will be no recognition of the Universe, followed by it outright going out of existence when the temperature hits absolute zero.

I've read this might be imposible, that in a finite but ever-expanding unbounded Universe, the temperature would constantly be decreasing but never actually reach absolutre zero. In that scenario the Universe never ends; but just keeps getting bigger, thinner, colder, and less ordered (like it matters once the average distance between elementary particles reaches a billion light years or so).

Interesting new phrase. I like it. I think the overall assessment, while consistent, is a bit depressing. Why don't you join my "God and the 1st Law Of Thermo" discussion, as it evolves? Could be fun

I think it was Bertrand Russell who, after taking in all the knowledge he could about Life, the Universe & Everything; came to the depressing conclusion that our puny little inconsequential lives were nothing more than a futile attempt at achieving some sort of enlightenment since the Universe was destined to either expand until it for all practical purposes became a vacuum, or collapse back into a singularity; either way leaving not even a teeny smidgen of a trace that humans (or anything else for that matter) ever existed. (I think this is what causes most people to want there to be an afterlife).

Sounds gloomy, but ole Bert missed the point. Which is, yeah, in the really really long term there will be some rough waters, then nothingness - but on the scale of time in which humans exist, that is irrelevant. Our job is to have fun for about 70 or 80 years, make sure enough of our DNA gets left behind, and teach those little DNA filled fleshbags to carry the torch of a civilized society. Who knows, we may never get out of the solar system, which means we will be extinct in what will be the equivalent of a cosmological hour or two. So what. It's the ride of a lifetime, the only one you get, and it is supposed to be fun. It is not within our duty or our comprehension to worry about what will happen in 3 or 5 or 10 billion years.

EDIT: Another great thread BTW. Love the insights, comic relief, and even the sometimes biting point-counterpoint. Good day all.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Don of Borg - Cool, calm, collective

"I am Homer of Borg. Prepare to be assimi----ooooh donuts!!!"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

>So you choose to hold a position that you admit you cannot justify
>(other than internally within your own head).

Pretty common nowadays. People keep all their money in a bank, even though they don't know how computers work, how their money will be stored, or how their money is insured by the government (if at all.) They just have faith that it will always be there - even though history has shown that banks DO fail with great regularity.

People get on airplanes even if they don't understand aerodynamics - and even if they crash sometimes. People get on elevators even if they don't understand Maxwell's Equations.

I don't see anything wrong with someone believing in something they don't quite understand.

I know that my bank exists, and that there is a margin for error when investing. I know that planes exist, and that accidents can happen.

He chooses to hold a belief - with 100% certainty - in something for which there is no evidence, and he chooses to not articulate the reason why, because it wouldn't be convincing to anyone other than himself.

There's a difference.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."