Religions > Atheism > The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2006 10:44:35 PM |
| Object: |
The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
.
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 11:49:05 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2006 01:44:02 -0800, "Panama Floyd" <panamaflyd@aol.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:48:59 GMT, Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome.
Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution
must be impossible. The very terms themselves express contradictory
concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word
meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing
spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove
anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the
First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The
most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come
is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
--
H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins,
the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational
mind.
~ Andrew
Isn't it amazing how many fools that don't know a damn thing about
physics and entropy show up trying to sell this ***** as a
justification for their imaginary gods.
Where do they get this crap, anyway?
<infomercial mode>
Tired of those smug intellectual types always making you look like a
fool? Well, no more. Now you too can be an expert with the Discovery
Institute® Home Scientist Kit. Amaze your friends and impress your
coworkers. Refute those immoral God-hating EVILutionists with ease.
Why bother with difficult, expensive, time consuming college courses
that don't teach God's Truth®? The Discovery Institute® Home Scientist
Kit comes with everything you need to become a scientist just like the
ones you've seen in the movies.* Get yours today and start putting
those uppity, know-it-all college graduates in their place! Millions
sold at $49.95, but yours for just $19.95 if you order now!
*Jeff Goldblum not included.
ROFL! I work in TV..your post sounds just like a real infomercial (man,
I hate those things)!
You and me both. <G>
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 07:23:56 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:
: "The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
: evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome.
: Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
:
: If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be
: impossible. The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The
: word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning
: "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral."
:
: "Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
: whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law
: shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The most scientific
: and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the
: beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
:
: -- H.Morris
:
:
: When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
: above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
:
: ~ Andrew
In this quote, Morris is using the term evolution in a cosmological sense
and is arguing that the universe cannot be infinite or self-creating. This
is an argument for God's existence, nothing more, and has nothing to do with
evolution per se. Even if we grant Morris' premise (which would be a very
generous stipulation), it is irrelevant when it comes to evolution in the
context of life of earth. The only truly closed system is the universe
itself - systems like the earth are not closed and entropy arguments are
meaningless in that context.
As for Morris' claim, it is at its heart an argument from ignorance. He is
basically asserting that the scientific community cannot account for the
existence of the universe in the context of current theory. That may be so
(and again, that is a generous stipulation), but at most all that means is
our current understanding of nature is incomplete. That is not a
particularly noteworthy observation.
In addition, this argument makes no claim as to what happened once the
universe came to be. Even if we allow that it may have been created by some
non-natural means, there is nothing in the argument to preclude its
subsequent development from taking place in the manner the scientific
community puts forth. The laws of thermodynamics clearly do not preclude the
universe from expanding or stars shining or living things growing and giving
birth. Nor do they mean that biological evolution cannot occur. Indeed, if
anything, the laws of thermodynamics makes such things possible.
In the end, apart from the initial creative event, there is nothing in this
argument to suggest that the creator, by whatever name, had any involvement
in the unfolding universe. The creator (aka 'God') is only necessary in
this argument in order to bring the universe into existence. This does not
qualify as a proof that God must exist, but rather only that God might
exist. It has no bearing whatsoever on evolution. Only the irrational mind
can conclude otherwise
Ralf
--
AA #2250
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nature is the canvas of creation and evolution but one of
the brushes. Religion points to the mind of God; Science
reveals its unfolding. The subjective apprehends knowledge
while the objective facilitates understanding.
In all things, yin and yang - ever flowing, one into the
other; always overtaking, always overtaken.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
28 Jan 2006 11:42:40 AM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and
entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be
impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word
"evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion
to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and
the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational
mind.
~ Andrew
When I read this kind of moronic rubbish I wonder whether education has any
power against these retards. There is all this talk about how creationism
and ID are a consequence of a failure of the education system to teach
science effectively. Does anybody think that education would do this guy any
good? Can we really educate people like Andrew? Or is education powerless
against religious brainwashing? What do you think?
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
28 Jan 2006 07:56:49 PM |
|
|
Milan wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and
entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be
impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word
"evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion
to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and
the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational
mind.
~ Andrew
When I read this kind of moronic rubbish I wonder whether education has any
power against these retards. There is all this talk about how creationism
and ID are a consequence of a failure of the education system to teach
science effectively. Does anybody think that education would do this guy any
good? Can we really educate people like Andrew? Or is education powerless
against religious brainwashing? What do you think?
regards
Milan
No, indoctrination trumps education every time. It is up to the
individual to decide for him- or herself. And people do that - there
have even been some who posted here who tell stories of what caused them
to think for themselves while remaining true to their deeply held faith.
I applaud them, even if their religion is not mine.
All that can be done is to set the stage and provide the proper
information and hope they think about it. Most of the posters here,
with the occasional sick exception, are not stupid. They may have
emotional problems that drive them to say what they do (e.g., "Richard
Dawkins") or just have been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they will
probably never change.
But to berate them and try to force them to change is just as much
evangelizing as what the most hateful missionary does and those posters
do here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
29 Jan 2006 12:02:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:42:40 -0000, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and
entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be
impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word
"evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion
to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and
the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational
mind.
~ Andrew
When I read this kind of moronic rubbish I wonder whether education has any
power against these retards.
None. The reason is they're driven by emotion-namely terror-and avoid
any connection with reality.
There is all this talk about how creationism
and ID are a consequence of a failure of the education system to teach
science effectively.
It's the failure of the wreckage of the dismantled US education system
period. What's needed is to encourage critical thinking skills as well
as the general value of education instead of the mindless
football/baseball/basketball entertainment sector.
Does anybody think that education would do this guy any
good?
Nope. He hold up his cross against education as if it were a vampyre.
Can we really educate people like Andrew?
No. All you can do is hand them a broom and hope they are up to meeting
the task.
Or is education powerless
against religious brainwashing?
It is powerless unless the victims fear levels are reduced to a level
that what remains (optimism) of their cognitive functions regains a
faint hint of functionality.
What do you think?
We're doomed.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
28 Jan 2006 09:15:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:42:40 -0000, "Milan" <mtklima@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <441p1sF1qjci9U1@individual.net>
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and
entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be
impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word
"evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture
is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion
to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and
the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational
mind.
~ Andrew
When I read this kind of moronic rubbish I wonder whether education has any
power against these retards. There is all this talk about how creationism
and ID are a consequence of a failure of the education system to teach
science effectively. Does anybody think that education would do this guy any
good? Can we really educate people like Andrew? Or is education powerless
against religious brainwashing? What do you think?
regards
Milan
Correct.
No amount of education can cure the truly mentally ill,
as Andrew plainly is.
But I believe that the truly ill are in the minority.
It is benighted ignorance that afflicts the majority.
Education is a cure for that burden.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 09:11:39 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in message
news:TyhCf.6650$Hd4.5100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"The law of increasing entropy
Idiot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 12:18:51 PM |
|
|
Andrew babbled:
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning.
Well, yes. Kind of, as far as I understand it.
Kind of.
Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe
could not have begun itself.
No.
The most scientific and logical conclusion
to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created
the heaven and the earth."
And his name is Odin. It logically follows that Asatru is the only true
faith and yours is false. Glad to see you agree with me, now please see the
light and join us.
..
..
..
Hurts when someone turns your own "logic" against you, eh?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 02:20:29 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome.
Evolution and
entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
Absolutely true and it proves that all of you are figments of the
imagination of someone who does not exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicholas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 04:05:48 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and
entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must
be impossible. The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts.
The word "evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The
picture is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe could not have begun itself. The most scientific and
logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the
beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
As I've said before anout the Morris quote, clever linguistics proves
nothing. The law is about physics not word play. And once again the most
important factor has been left out: the 2nd Law is only true for closed
systems. It is patently obvious that Earth is *not* a closed system due
to the constant influx of energy from the Sun.
Nicholas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 04:13:35 PM |
|
|
"Nicholas" wrote in message news:drd1ko$bqq4$1@news3.infoave.net...
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must
be impossible. The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts.
The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning
"out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe could not have begun itself. The most scientific and
logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the
beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
As I've said before anout the Morris quote, clever linguistics proves nothing.
No linguistics can change the fact that.....evolution and entropy are opposing
and mutually exclusive concepts. Entropy points to devolution, not evolution.
The law is about physics not word play. And once again the most
important factor has been left out: the 2nd Law is only true for closed
systems.
...which the universe is. The Second Law proves that the universe did have a
beginning, and the First Law proves that the universe could not have begun
itself.
It is patently obvious that Earth is *not* a closed system due
to the constant influx of energy from the Sun.
You may account for that factor, nevertheless the law of entropy still applies.
Do you believe that it is because of the energy from the Sun that we have the
tree of life today? Much more than sun and mud would be required for life to
have been established. The Cambrian explosion presents itself with complex
living things without any history of their evolutionary development. Therefore
again, this all points us to the most scientific and logical conclusion to which
we could possibly come to: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and
the earth."
Nicholas
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 04:58:30 PM |
|
|
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:jWwCf.7884$Hd4.6159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Nicholas" wrote in message news:drd1ko$bqq4$1@news3.infoave.net...
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome.
Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution
must be impossible. The very terms themselves express contradictory
concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin
word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing
spiral." "Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can
prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning.
Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have
begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion to which
we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the
heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins,
the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational
mind.
~ Andrew
As I've said before anout the Morris quote, clever linguistics proves
nothing.
No linguistics can change the fact that.....evolution and entropy are
opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. Entropy points to
devolution, not evolution.
The law is about physics not word play. And once again the most
important factor has been left out: the 2nd Law is only true for
closed systems.
..which the universe is. The Second Law proves that the universe did
have a
beginning, and the First Law proves that the universe could not have
begun itself.
It is patently obvious that Earth is *not* a closed system due
to the constant influx of energy from the Sun.
You may account for that factor, nevertheless the law of entropy still
applies. Do you believe that it is because of the energy from the Sun
that we have the tree of life today? Much more than sun and mud would
be required for life to have been established. The Cambrian explosion
presents itself with complex living things without any history of
their evolutionary development. Therefore again, this all points us to
the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly
come to: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Nicholas
Andrew
ROTFL. Damn, what a case of willful ignorance!
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 05:52:31 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
(snip)
No linguistics can change the fact that.....evolution and entropy are
opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. Entropy points to devolution,
not evolution.
Can you supply *ANY* citation to the scientific literature for this claim?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicholas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 07:49:43 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Nicholas" wrote in message news:drd1ko$bqq4$1@news3.infoave.net...
Andrew wrote:
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins,
the above can be the only possible conclusion of the
rational mind.
~ Andrew
As I've said before anout the Morris quote, clever linguistics proves
nothing.
No linguistics can change the fact that.....evolution and entropy are
opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. Entropy points to devolution,
not evolution.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to an overall decrease in useful
energy in the universe as a whole, a net increase in entropy. The key
word is net. It is quite possible to have a local decrase in entropy if
it is accompanied by at least an equal increase elsewhere. In the long
run, assuming science doesn't find someway out of the universe, all life
will cease. But whilst the Sun exists, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
does *not* apply to Earth because our planet is not a closed system. If
you are going to quote the 2nd Law you should at least know exactly what
it states and your continued insistence on refering to it indicates you
don't fully understand it.
The law is about physics not word play. And once again the most
important factor has been left out: the 2nd Law is only true for
closed systems.
...which the universe is. The Second Law proves that the universe did
have a beginning, and the First Law proves that the universe could not
have begun itself.
Indeed, the universe is a closed system, *but* Earth within that
universe is *not*. Locally we are decreasing entropy due to the
copntinual influx of energy from the Sun: the accompanying increase to
keep the 2nd Law in practice is occuring off planet.
The 1st Law proves no such thing. All it says is that energy is
conserved. That would apply to an eternal universe as well as one with a
beginning, or a universe that is part of a greater entity which has been
posited but not yet proved within physics.
It is patently obvious that Earth is *not* a closed system due to the
constant influx of energy from the Sun.
You may account for that factor, nevertheless the law of entropy still
applies.
Do you believe that it is because of the energy from the Sun that we
have the
tree of life today?
So far I've been talking about Earth as a whole. Life itself gets energy
from two sources. The first is the Sun, the second is the internal heat
of the Earth itself. These two sources do provide the energy input
required. Your own growth from fertilised egg to adult is an example of
that.
Much more than sun and mud would be required for
life to have been established.
Indeed. You also need time and a relatively stable environment, probably
with a reducing atmosphere.
The Cambrian explosion presents itself
with complex living things without any history of their evolutionary
development.
Not true. The fossil evidence is not complete largely because most
lifeforms at this point were soft bodied. However, the molecular
evidence shows that life existed well before the so called Cambrian
explosion and was evolving as witnessed in the fossil record and
molecular record after the Cambrian explosion.
Therefore
again, this all points us to the most scientific and logical conclusion
to which we could possibly come to: "In the beginning, God created the
heavens and
the earth."
There is no evidence of God to scientific standards, ie: reproducable
and objective, hence your claim that the conclusion is scientific is
wrong. Or do you have access to such evidence somewhere?
And it is not logical because the premises on which you are trying to
apply your logic are flawed in the understanding. Until you actually
apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics properly you will never be able to
claim any kind of sequential logic to your conclusion.
In addition, to claim both a scientific and logical basis to your stated
conclusion you will need to demonstrate more evidence for God than a
self referential religious text as there are so many other texts which
make the same claim for montheistic and polytheistic divinities.
Nicholas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 05:12:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:13:35 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
No linguistics can change the fact that.....evolution and entropy are opposing
and mutually exclusive concepts. Entropy points to devolution, not evolution.
Only in a closed system.
Earth is not a closed system.
The law is about physics not word play. And once again the most
important factor has been left out: the 2nd Law is only true for closed
systems.
..which the universe is.
True, but within that closed system, you can have pockets of open
systems. Any mass, orbiting a hot/radiating star, is an open system.
The Second Law proves that the universe did have a
beginning,
No, it does not.
and the First Law proves that the universe could not have begun
itself.
No, it does not
It is patently obvious that Earth is *not* a closed system due
to the constant influx of energy from the Sun.
You may account for that factor, nevertheless the law of entropy still applies.
Are you claiming that the 2LOT, applies, even outside a closed system?
If so, please show your evidence.
Do you believe that it is because of the energy from the Sun that we have the
tree of life today?
Essentially, yes
Much more than sun and mud would be required for life to
have been established.
Evidence?, calculations, whatever?
The Cambrian explosion presents itself with complex
living things without any history of their evolutionary development.
Irrelevant
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 10:31:40 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> posting the following on Fri, 27 Jan 2006
22:13:35 GMT iin alt.atheism?
No linguistics can change the fact that.....evolution and entropy are opposing
and mutually exclusive concepts. Entropy points to devolution, not evolution.
Explain pregnancy then. You start with two cells, and end up with a
fully-functional being with billions of cells, some of them quite
specialized.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
26 Jan 2006 11:12:34 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and
entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
Wrong. Local entropy can be decreased by the application of energy. A
chief point of confusion is the fact that the Second Law applies only to
isolated systems. For example, the Earth is not an isolated system
because it is constantly receiving energy in the form of sunlight.
Claiming entropy prevents evolution is like saying that seeds can't grow
- false on its face. Entropy is not an impenetrable barrier except on
the scale of the universe (and even then AFAIK entropy only applies to
static volumes and since the universe is expanding...).
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must
be impossible.
Well, since heritable genetic change in reproducing populations over
time is a fact, then this is obviously wrong.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts.
The word "evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The
picture is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that
the universe could not have begun itself. The most scientific and
logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the
beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
Nope. Sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Panama Floyd" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 03:14:35 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been
SNIP!
2LoT *again*? Jeez, if you morons are not going to co-ordinate your
attacks, could you at least use the search function to see whether or
not someone else has tried it before? This must be the ten thousandth
time someone's posted that crap here.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
who never thought he'd turn into a `Search Nazi'. <sigh>
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 04:20:35 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2006 01:14:35 -0800, "Panama Floyd" <panamaflyd@aol.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138353275.664225.4860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been
SNIP!
2LoT *again*? Jeez, if you morons are not going to co-ordinate your
attacks, could you at least use the search function to see whether or
not someone else has tried it before? This must be the ten thousandth
time someone's posted that crap here.
Don't forget that these cretinous imbeciles-for-christ don't have much
ammunition in their armory.
They are forced to recycle their waste.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Grubb" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
29 Jan 2006 09:38:49 PM |
|
|
In article <nqsjt19nh1af1q4s9ququjjvg43rk5r53t@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On 27 Jan 2006 01:14:35 -0800, "Panama Floyd" <panamaflyd@aol.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138353275.664225.4860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no
evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been
SNIP!
2LoT *again*? Jeez, if you morons are not going to co-ordinate your
attacks, could you at least use the search function to see whether or
not someone else has tried it before? This must be the ten thousandth
time someone's posted that crap here.
Don't forget that these cretinous imbeciles-for-christ don't have much
ammunition in their armory.
They are forced to recycle their waste.
They are at least not like Sheff who repeated the exact same thing over and
over again. You get the same thing over and over again but at least it is
worded different. Still wrong most of the time but at least wrong a
different way each time you see it. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Day" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 11:36:59 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 27 Jan 2006 01:14:35 -0800, "Panama Floyd" <panamaflyd@aol.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1138353275.664225.4860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been
SNIP!
2LoT *again*? Jeez, if you morons are not going to co-ordinate your
attacks, could you at least use the search function to see whether or
not someone else has tried it before? This must be the ten thousandth
time someone's posted that crap here.
Don't forget that these cretinous imbeciles-for-christ don't have much
ammunition in their armory.
They are forced to recycle their waste.
Well, they're up to 2 of the three R's, anyway.
They're reusing and recycling the same old crap.
That's a start. Now if only they'd 'reduce'
their output...
--
R
Atheist Chair,
EAC Disciplinary Committee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
29 Jan 2006 04:07:12 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome.
There is no need to overcome the law of increasing energy.
Evolution and entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
No they are not.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law,
It certainly is.
then evolution must be impossible.
It isnt.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts.
Nope.
The word "evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
The only possible conclusion of a ration mind is that Morris is a moron
or a liar - or possibly both!
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 12:20:50 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
This is not correct.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
The word "evolution," in reference to branching descent with
modification, started out as a metaphor (its original meaning in
biology was "development," especially in regard to embryological
development). This is not particularly relevant to Morris's point,
here, but it illustrates a common creationist error: assuming that the
meaning of words does not vary with context and does not, er, evolve
over time.
It's worth noting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, apply to human
artifacts and human design as much as to unguided natural processes.
Indeed, the 2LoT was worked out to explain various problems encountered
by engineers and inventors in building engines. If, indeed, the "law
of increasing entropy" actually prohibited evolution, it would equally
prohibit humans from building refrigerators, or growing tomatoes, or
indeed from having babies. All of these represent cases of local
reversals of entropy or disorder, yet all seem to happen on a regular
basis. By the same token, biological evolution takes place in only
small portions of the universe, and there is plenty of space for
entropy to increase while local increases take place.
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
At this point, Morris infers that something (or Someone) somewhere,
somehow, must be immune to the 2LoT. I am not sure that this follows,
actually (if the universe is infinite, it can presumably accomodate
infinite increases in total entropy while allowing infinite decreases
in local entropy). He does not consider that intelligence and purpose,
by themselves, do nothing to insulate one from "the law of increasing
entropy" (otherwise, human designers could build perpetual motion
machines). OTOH, there seems no reason why something that was immune
to the 2LoT would have to be otherwise omnipotent, or intelligent or
purposeful. Morris's conclusions do not follow even from his
demonstrably defective premises.
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
26 Jan 2006 11:13:42 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution"
is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an
outward-progressing spiral."
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever,
that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe
could not have begun itself. The most scientific and logical conclusion to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
A quote doesn't make the assertion true. There is no evidence of your
god thingy. It's had millenia to come up with a way to convince people
of its existence, yet it is oddly silent.
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
Entropy does not increase uniformly. There can be local decreases in
entropy, which is why the second law is usually stated as (or similar
to) "The total entropy of an isolated system tends to increase over
time". The Earth is not a closed system, so energy can enter from the
outside (via solar radiation) and decrease the entropy in the system.
So this argument is bunk.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 09:51:56 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Andrew poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
"The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary
mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy
are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
http://www.entropylaw.com/
The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts.
See the above links.
....
"Thus, the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever,
that the universe had a beginning.
It shows no such thing.
Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe
could not have begun itself.
The universe might be eternal.
The most scientific and logical conclusion to which we
could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
-- H.Morris
This "conclusion" is neither scientific or logical.
When we consider the laws of thermodynamics and origins, the
above can be the only possible conclusion of the rational mind.
~ Andrew
Guess again.
Regards,
Josef
Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent
design.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 08:54:12 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:44:35 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"The law of increasing entropy
Has nothing to do with evolution. Morris is a fuckwit who
understands neither biology nor physics.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 04:13:11 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:evckt1pc8n2rvmgq35d67r4igprc67d6dl@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"The law of increasing entropy
Has nothing to do with evolution.
I agree. They are mutually exclusive concepts. That's
why life on earth could -not- have arisen by evolution.
Don
Thanks Don!
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 06:28:22 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:evckt1pc8n2rvmgq35d67r4igprc67d6dl@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"The law of increasing entropy
Has nothing to do with evolution.
I agree. They are mutually exclusive concepts. That's why life on earth
could -not- have arisen by evolution.
No they are not. That's a lie.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nicholas" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 07:13:43 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:evckt1pc8n2rvmgq35d67r4igprc67d6dl@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"The law of increasing entropy
Has nothing to do with evolution.
I agree. They are mutually exclusive concepts. That's why life on earth
could -not- have arisen by evolution.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies *only* to *CLOSED* sytems.
A closed system is one with *zero* energy incoming or exiting,
Earth is *not* a closed system.
Why?
Because Earth receives a *continual input* of energy from the Sun,
incorporated into the ecology via photosynthesis.
As a result the 2nd Law of Themrodynamics does *not* apply.
It is basic physics, totally detached from evolution, totally detached
from the existence or not of God.
Whatever other arguments you have against evolution, the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics is utterly invalid, and to keep asserting it as a reason
evolution cannot occur is either ignorance or deliberate deception,
regardless of whether the law is naturally arising or divinely
instituted. Until the Sun goes out Earth will be nowhere near even
approximating a closed system for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to apply.
Nicholas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: The Only Scientific And Logical Conclusion Is................ |
27 Jan 2006 09:49:51 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:13:11 GMT, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:evckt1pc8n2rvmgq35d67r4igprc67d6dl@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"The law of increasing entropy
Has nothing to do with evolution.
I agree. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
*sigh*
They are not. The 2LoT has nothing to do with evolution. So
using it to say "evolution can't happen" is a load of horseshit.
In fact, it's really only the dumbest of the cretinists who
still use the 2LoT argument. All the regulars know they'll get the
***** kicked outta them if they try that load of fucking *****.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
