Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?

I don't and I haven't.

You have a point?
I ignored all the walls of text.

Distill your point into a few sentences and I'll be happy to point out your errors.

 

[Hollie]

It seems ywc was feverishly scouring the web and found a blog by Lambert Dolphin.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist.

The creationist argument is, the 2nd Law, which applies to isolated systems, makes evolution impossible in the Earth's open system.

the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins.

Not at all.

When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue.

I'll probably try to read your wall of crap and mock you some more later.
Stay stupid.

 

[Hollie]

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

Heck. Everytime I've seen ywc make the statement that his cut and paste "quotes" from "well respected evolutionist", support his claims to magic, I've found his "quotes" to be edited, parsed, out of context, or simply fabrications by the fundie wackos he cuts and pastes from.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?

I don't and I haven't.

You have a point?
I ignored all the walls of text.

Distill your point into a few sentences and I'll be happy to point out your errors.

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist.

The creationist argument is, the 2nd Law, which applies to isolated systems, makes evolution impossible in the Earth's open system.

the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins.

Not at all.

When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue.

I'll probably try to read your wall of crap and mock you some more later.
Stay stupid.

You can't argue against the facts genius.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

Heck. Everytime I've seen ywc make the statement that his cut and paste "quotes" from "well respected evolutionist", support his claims to magic, I've found his "quotes" to be edited, parsed, out of context, or simply fabrications by the fundie wackos he cuts and pastes from.

You lie.

 

[Hollie]

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

Heck. Everytime I've seen ywc make the statement that his cut and paste "quotes" from "well respected evolutionist", support his claims to magic, I've found his "quotes" to be edited, parsed, out of context, or simply fabrications by the fundie wackos he cuts and pastes from.

You lie.

Heck. I have an entire catalog of your fraudulent "quotes" in the "Creationist" thread.

Heck. You seem to forget that your creation ministries are purveyors of fraudulent, edited, parsed and phony "quotes".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

There is no contradiction.

The burning of gasoline, converting energy "rich" compounds (hydrocarbons) into energy "lean" compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20), is a second illustration of this principle.

Excellent! Let's use glucose, CO2 and H2O is our talk.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe (or any isolated system therein) is increasing; i.e., the energy of the universe is becoming more uniformly distributed

Excellent!

An open system is one which exchanges both energy and mass with the surroundings.

Great! Sounds like the Earth, or a plant.

In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.

Holy crap! He just refuted your original claim.
I see no problem with this from the evolutionary side of the argument.

So why is your original claim correct and your source incorrect?

While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics

Check it out, he's calling you irrational!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

 

[eots]

it's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

we are lucky someone thought of that...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?

OMG! Useless wall of text.

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?

I don't and I haven't.

You have a point?
I ignored all the walls of text.

Distill your point into a few sentences and I'll be happy to point out your errors.

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue.

Thanks, that was funny.
Let me know when you understand this wall of text.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist.

The creationist argument is, the 2nd Law, which applies to isolated systems, makes evolution impossible in the Earth's open system.

the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins.

Not at all.

When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue.

I'll probably try to read your wall of crap and mock you some more later.
Stay stupid.

You can't argue against the facts genius.

And yet, you continue to argue against the facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I blame the Tnuctipun.

 

[orogenicman]

Todd

Just adding energy does not produce order. Evolution is a solely a random process what happens with random processes in a system ? it will increase entropy. Yes energy is added to earth but unusable energy can and does produce harm.

Except that evolution is not a random process, because its primary forcing, natural selection, is not random.

Copying errors and breaks in Dna strands are not random ?

Natural selection can produce both complexity or a less adapted organisms and that is not random ?

Copying errors in DNA strands are not a result of natural selection. Those are mostly random. There is nothing random about natural selection. It is exactly like artificial selection with two exceptions - the time scale of the changes, and the driving mechanism, which in the former is primarily a result of changes in an organism's environment. Natural selection doesn't support less adapted organisms. They tend to die off, leaving the better adapted organism to reproduce. Natural selection does produce more complexity. It also produces less complexity. The issue isn't whether or not an organism is more complex. The issue is does its complexity (or simplicity) give it a survival and reproductive advantage within the environment in which it finds itself?

We have artificially selected animals for thousands of years. Nature has done essentially the same thing for billions of years. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

 

[eots]

Except that evolution is not a random process, because its primary forcing, natural selection, is not random.

Copying errors and breaks in Dna strands are not random ?

Natural selection can produce both complexity or a less adapted organisms and that is not random ?

Copying errors in DNA strands are not a result of natural selection. Those are mostly random. There is nothing random about natural selection. It is exactly like artificial selection with two exceptions - the time scale of the changes, and the driving mechanism, which in the former is primarily a result of changes in an organism's environment. Natural selection doesn't support less adapted organisms. They tend to die off, leaving the better adapted organism to reproduce. Natural selection does produce more complexity. It also produces less complexity. The issue isn't whether or not an organism is more complex. The issue is does its complexity (or simplicity) give it a survival and reproductive advantage within the environment in which it finds itself?

We have artificially selected animals for thousands of years. Nature has done essentially the same thing for billions of years. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

then explain this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aj4PTEl6Q]Family Matters - Dueling Accordions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

That is what I call you being willfully disruptive of threads.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

 

[eots]

That is what I call you being willfully disruptive of threads.

no answer I see
.

 

[orogenicman]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

Why not? Do you have an aversion to the sexes?

Seriously, though:

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia