Creationist Lies 666 apologies
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- brtman
I'm sorry I did the 666th post in that big thread. I'm a big fat lurker with bad timing skils. Can you forgive me?
- Hym0
don't give yourself the credit, it was a deed of Satan and you act like that is something to be proud about or expect forgiveness for having buddies in high places.
no way
- JazX0
yes, brtman, I can figure you because you had nothing negative to say hahaa ;)
lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurklurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurk lurk, lurklurk, lurk lurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurklurk, lurk
- Kuz0
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. This means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.
Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.
Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.
- discipler0
Kuz, please provide the periodical this information was published in. Has a peer group reviewed and confirmed this? I ask this because the second Law remains unchanged to my knowledge. Here's what I understand in light of what you just quoted...
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
I think that last senctence is key.
Look at what Evolutionist "god" Isaac Asimov said:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
- discipler0
But, please... let's not beat this dead horse any further.
- bruised_blood0
QBN:
Please kill this thread.
Please. Please. Please.
Puuurrrrr-llllllllllllllleeeeeee...
- Kuz0
ah, see, that is where you are mistaken, and your christian sources deliberately mislead you.
What you are saying, at what Creationists often deliberately mislead people into thinking, this that the second law is "the law of disorder" – which strictly prohibits the chance formation of complicated stuctures from simple parts, including complex molecules from simple ones.
This is fallacious to view the second law as a predictor of disorder. The second law concerns energy, not patterns of objects. The second law states that energy tends not to be restricted to one or a few energy levels in atoms and molecules, but to be dispersed to as many such levels as possible – rephrased in homely terms involving molecules, "Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse".
In that spreading-out process, macro objects sometimes are displaced and moved to random arrangements that humans subjectively define as "disorder". A violent wind not only can break a window in a building and blow the papers in an office all over a square mile, but also destroy the building itself. However, this is an incidental consequence of dispersing and spreading out of the energy in a tornado, not an event that is due to the innate nature or behavior of inanimate objects themselves in the absence of such an energy flow. Moving common objects around so they fall in disorder is a singular and accidental aspect of the universal tendency of energy to diffuse, not the general thrust or meaning or requirement of the second law that applies to objects.
- Kuz0
hey i want people to have a chance at fighting for the 666 spot again.
- Kuz0
I'm sorry, but i do not who this guy is but this quote is ridiculous, and basically sums up the ridiculousness of all creationists attempts at perverting the second law:
“ We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate."
That is ridiculous how you can apply subjective human ideas of a "dirty" "messy" house to a biological, mathermatical process of thermodynamics. But this is the sum of what you guys do.
pfft
- hekn0
can I have some crack, too, please!
- discipler0
Kuz, the "christian sources" argument is false. Scientists in general maintain that the Second Law applies on both a Macro and Micro scale. Things degrade over time, on both levels. And there is not a shred of scientific evidence to suppor that something as complex as a single cell could have spontaneously generated. A cell is irreducibly complex meaning that if you remove even one of it's many components, it will not function - like an engineered machine. Science has never, I repeat, never observed the constituent components organize to form a functioning molecular machine like this. Not to mention the super-computer complexity of a single strand of DNA. Natural processes do not know how to exert selective pressures on something that is non functioning in the first place and then magically group all the components in the exact place and sequence they need to be for said machines to do their respective function.
Even if what you are touting were true, you merely push the issue of origins/design a step back in sequence of creation. And you never answered my question about the source of your info and whether or not it is peer reviewed and if it is published.
- mikotondria20
Once again creationists are pointing to some aspect of science that they have not fully understood, or about which there is something that is not fully known, such as the emergence of self-replicating, complexifying chemical species, and invoking the existence of a God..
Just because a process is not understood doesnt mean that God did it, its just not understood. It doesnt detract from the beauty and wonder that is life, the awe and intelligability of the universe and of being that part of it localised into 'human experience' is once process, only our conceptualization of it renders the illusion of a hole that some plug with the word God. The big bang is still going, as that one process, and at this very moment is reading this post. Noone will deny that the universe began, and that it has resulted in human conciousness, but to peg our limited understanding of that to a set of broader unprovable and unevidenced priniciples labelled God is just incorrect.
The tao that can be spoken of is not the tao, for god to exist there must be 'not-God', which by the very definition of the word cannot exist, therefore neither God, nor non-God exists, and the whole concept is by its own definition, a fallacy.
Think of all the things that dont exist, was it God that didnt create them, or something else ?
- discipler0
HAH! That was Isaac Asimov, Kuz! Probably the most worshipped Atheistic Evolutionist ever. Sheeeez.
- Kuz0
for example, take Tracy Emin's bed. It is esssentially a "messy" unmade bed, strewn with dirt, seminal fluid, empty beer cans, fag ends etc. etc. If you were Martha Stewart, you would say it has become "disordered" and that the minute it left Ikea it was at its most ordered. However Charles Saachi and others would say, it has not in fact deteriorated, but has in fact, become a work of art. Become more complex, natural.
These are highly subjective metaphors based on the the complexities of abstract human language that you try and comform the mathematical concept of thermodynamics onto. That is why you, fundamentally, err.
- Kuz0
I do not give a fuck it was Darwin himself discipler. That is a ridiculous thing to say.
No doubt your quote took him outta context, or whatever. But that remains a ridiculous thing to say
anyway, just one sec
- discipler0
That made a lot of sense, Kuz. Rediculous.
- Kuz0
1. Things degrade over time, on both levels.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to do with "degrade" "disorder", it is simply the spread of energy. As i said to you, degrade, disorder, whatever refer to something else, not the reordering of energy that thermodynamics refers to
2. And there is not a shred of scientific evidence to suppor that something as complex as a single cell could have spontaneously generated.
No there isn't. Biologist have not yet witnessed the formation of cells spontaneously. However, this does not mean thermodynamics is false, since OTHER SPONTANEOUS COMPLEXITY FORMATION HAS BEEN OBSERVED.
observe:
"Far more complicated types of compounds that contain either carbon and hydrogen alone, or those elements with oxygen, have been detected in space: PAHs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. As in the case of the alkanes, the thermodynamic category of formation of the two groups of PAHs are different. If oxygen is present in the PAH (and this cannot yet be decided spectroscopically) the substances are less energetic than the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen elements from which they were formed. Thus, they were formed spontaneously strictly in accord with the second law of thermodynamics.
It is an amusing sidenote that the anti-depressant ingredient in St. John’s Wort, listed as hypercin and the precise structure given in the Merck Index, is an oxygen-containing PAH. These are complex substances that are important here on earth. It is still questionable, of course, that molecules with this precise structure are in space, but it is energetically completely possible that it and many comparable materials may be present there.
PAHs composed only of carbon and hydrogen contain more energy within their molecules than do elemental carbon and hydrogen. Therefore, their synthesis from the elements is thermodynamically non-spontaneous. Nevertheless, these PAHs detected in space would have been formed "automatically", i.e., without any organismic intervention (!). Energy would have been supplied to the process, probably via powerful bursts of radiation from many kinds of stellar and similar sources.
Even more convincing evidence of the existence of PAHs in space and in other parts of the universe is their presence in meteorites that have fallen to the earth. Extremely careful isolation of carbon-containing substances from some meteorites has proved the presence of specific polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Cyanide compounds, formed from the elements of carbon and nitrogen, have been shown by spectroscopy to be prevalent in all comets, along with ice (spontaneously formed from hydrogen and oxygen). All cyanides are considerably higher in energy content than carbon and hydrogen and thus they must have been formed non-spontaneously thermodynamically.
In summary, there is ample evidence for the existence of complicated, orderly molecules in outer space. They were formed without an organism’s assistance because no such organisms have been found associated with them in meteorites and, of course, none can thrive in the energetic conditions of outer space. The "automatic" formation of complicated, orderly substances both spontaneously and non-spontaneously is simply the consequence of normal chemical laws and the second law of thermodynamics. (The intense energy sources in space make possible non-spontaneous synthesis there.)"
- Kuz0
3. Not to mention the super-computer complexity of a single strand of DNA
See, again you are trying to use metaphors and colourful language like "super-computer complexity" etc. etc... If you want to go into the theories of the formation of DNA and other molecules such as that, then thats a whole new topic. But lets stick to thermodynamics shall we? :)
- Kuz0
what is rediculous discipler? the idea that "messy" and "disorder" are anthropological liguistic constructs of cultural beings rather than mathematical equations?
sorry if that is hard to grasp.
- discipler0
The real issue you are trying to communicate with your qutoes, Kuz, is the notion that irreducibly complex mechanisms were somehow able to spontaneously create themselves from the constituent molecules.
The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man. That's one cell. One cell.
There is no natural way to even get the building blocks of life on earth, yet even if they did exist, there is no known natural process for how or why they would then form more complex molecules such as polymers, proteins, RNA, or DNA. The laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics, stack impossible odds against the origin of life. Even the “simplest” forms of life would be far too complex to arise by chance, for many complex parts exist in even the “simplest” bacteria.
Take, DNA for another example. DNA needs enzymes and proteins to replicate, but enzymes and proteins are created by DNA. The DNA-enzyme package must stay together but DNA creates the "cell membrane". DNA, proteins, and the cell membrane must all be present AT ONCE for life to exist. This irreducibly complex system could not arise by chance.
For fun, take a limited look at a single Escherichia coli cell. Remove just one tiny component and guess what? Nonfunctioning...
