Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[itfitzme]

Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.

As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.

I beg to differ. And so does Einstein. Not only is it impossible to prove the universe is a closed system, it doesn't even make sense. How can a vacuum exist in an open system?

Again, maybe I'm way off base here. The anti-creationists boast of "acing" their classes in Thermodynamics and use a lot of big words, so I'm obviously way out of my league.

So where did I go wrong? (Please bear in mind that I'm a simple man so keep the words under 30 letters each and keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply) -- And I ask that the reply be in 1,000 words or less, else I might have to stop for a coffee break while reading it, and lose interest.

While both itfitzme and Steven_R have offered better responses than my will be....
I think that in time, you will discover the slogan “anti-creationists” tends to pre-define both your argument and your agenda. The 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution™ was an earlier tactic employed by young earth creationists (YEC’ists), allegedly as a foil to evolution and an ancient earth / universe. The tactic involved claims that the 2nd law of thermo was a supposed unassailable obstacle to evolution because the planet operated as an “isolated” or closed system. Most people (“most people”) understand that our sun is the engine that drives any number of crucial electro – chemical processes on our planet. Thus, the planet does not operate as a closed system but rather an open system receiving energy from an external source.

When critics of YEC’ists pointed out these flaws in the alleged violation of the 2nd law of thermo as used by creationists, they retreated to various specious arguments and some rather silly reinterpretations of the law, designed to detour around their faulty re-writing. Over the last 20 years or so, the only YEC’ists who even approach the "2nd thermo" argument have been the more loopy of the YEC’ists as represented by the Institute of Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and the ”Hovind Entertainment Network” among the more notorious of the Christian creation ministries. And make no mistake, if you read the “about”,or the “statement of faith” section of the above organizations, they are fundamentalist Christian ministries with a pre-commitment to literal biblical creation.

I can only urge you to review the relevant science data, here, for one example:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

Not better, just different.

You might want to be aware that "closed" may be a bit fuzzy. I've seen it used with and without reference to "isolated". This happens.

I ran across a nice presentation that explained how context is everything as to if Earth is taken as closed or isolated.

But, you know some people... Give them the chance to ignore your context and say you're wrong.....

Me, personally, I've never been anti-much of any thing. I am, though, pro-science, pro-reason, pro-responsibility, pro-individual rights, pro-resolution, and more. The problem is, there are some things that just can't be reconciled. I am forced to take a side, be pro-vocative, have a pro-gram. I don't want to. People have a right to believe what they want to, in the privacy of their own home and mind. But it is irresponsible, even abusive, to put complete non-sense out in public. I am pro-sense, which forces me to be anti-non-sense.

Inspite of my best efforts, I'm forced by them to be anti-theist. I've given YWC the option of accepting that faith is an alpha of 5%. People have a right to believe.

A problem is that the emotional brain has no difficulty puttimg things together that simply cannot exist in reality. I am pro-reality.

I'd rather be ambi-theist. But, it seems, because I am pro-science, I am forced to be some sort of a-theist.
_______________________________________________

Six Types Of Athiests

A study of the variability in the perception and actions of athiest was recently published.

ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE. By Christopher F Silver

"Previous research and studies focusing on the diverse landscape of Belief in America have continually placed those who profess no belief in a God or gods into one unified category infamously known as the “religious nones”. This catch-all category presented anyone who identified as having “no religion” as a homogeneous group in America today, lumping people who may believe in God with the many who don’t. Moreover, it also assumed that all Non-believers were the same. Based on their personal experiences and involvement in the atheist community, Principal Investigator Chris Silver and Thomas J. Coleman III knew that not only did this “religious none” category fail to accurately capture and reflect the diversity of beliefs (or un-belief) but that even the terms of atheism and agnosticism suffered from a similar lack of description.*Each term was pregnant with meaning and interpretation from a variety of different types of people. Moreover, beyond the psychology of nonbelief, atheism and agnosticism proved sociologically complex as well. "

CNN-Blog-Six-Types-Of-Athiests

The CNN Article

Study Author Discusses

The Study: Six Types Of Athiests

 

[westwall]

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mbile

"Creation Ministries International"?

Could you have offered a less credible source? That's a rhetorical question, btw.

I agree! It's the skepticalscience.com of the creationist world!

 

[itfitzme]

Entropy is a measure of the number of ways that a system can arrange itself.

Entropy is literally an accounting of the number of ways that the particles can be arranged.

Mathematically it is;

S=k*ln(Ω(E))

where Ω(E) is the number of ways the particles be arranged. k is Boltzman's constant. ln(x) is the function, natural logarithm.

Someone figured out that counting the number of ways a system of particles can be arranged, taking the natural log, and multiplying by k, gives a number that can be compared to other things.

As a specific example, we can consided two coins that are being flipped repeatedly. Two coins can be arranged in four ways, TT, HT, TH, and HH. So, the entropy is

S=k*ln(4)=k*1.386=1.9*10^-23 J/K

Care has to be taken when understanding the 2nd law.

Entropy is used in communication theory. In information theory, higher entropy represents more information.

I use it as a measure of the utility of a forum member. Because it is a personal formula, I am free to devise any numerical method I want.

My measure is

S(Info,Posts)=Info/Posts where Info is a count of the number of sentences that present unique imformation about the objective world. Incorrect information is counted as a negative number. Posts is the total number of sentences. So,

1 >= S(Info,Posts)=Info/Posts >= -1

Someone that posts "You're stupid", or a variation of it, in five seperate posts, has an personal utility entropy of

S(-1,5) = -.2

Someone that constantly posts but provides no useful info has S=0. Someone that constantly posts bad info has an S → -1. Someone that posts unique and useful info has an S → 1.

It is a weak but accurate measure. Weak, accurate measures have high utility because they can be done intuitively. I don't do logarithms in my head. Even Newton did them in this notebook.

It is also modifiable for a number of utilities. Taking the absolute value gives me an info entropy regarding the utility that is provided as I use bad ideas to look up good ideas. Anyone that has a near zero entropy is put on ignore. They have no utility.

I can count the instances of the use of the second person pronoun. This serves as a measure of objectivity. People that have high subjective negative entropy get ignored. They are trolls.

Entropy is an awesome concept. It must, though, be used appropriately, in the context for which it was devised.

High entropy means more countable states. It does not necessarily mean more dissorder.

Someone, in some site, somewhere on the interweb, pointed out that a desk of items has no more or less entropy than the same items which have been strewn on the floor.

I am thankful for that clarity as it is correct. This would be the case as, whatever the order on the floor may be, it is still a single state of organization.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

I disagree, a closed system allows energy but not matter and total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

You can add energy to a system and make it more ordered.
Even if you disagree.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

I disagree, a closed system allows energy but not matter and total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

You can add energy to a system and make it more ordered.
Even if you disagree.

The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction. In the article I posted it gave an example of what would happen with undirected energy. If you stand out in the sun to long it would cause mutations.The body cannot deal with undirected energy.

 

[itfitzme]

"The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction."

I'm not even sure what that means. The sun sends energy out in all directions. The earth orbits the sun and revolves on its axis. The axis has a tilt from the orbital plane. The moon orbits the earth. In this simple system of cycles, other cycles come about. These include night and day, tides, and seasons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I disagree, a closed system allows energy but not matter and total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

You can add energy to a system and make it more ordered.
Even if you disagree.

The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction. In the article I posted it gave an example of what would happen with undirected energy. If you stand out in the sun to long it would cause mutations.The body cannot deal with undirected energy.

The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction.

You should quit while you're behind.

 

[itfitzme]

"total entropy of a closed system never decreases", spontaneously.

"total entropy of a closed system" will increase, spontaneously, towards maximum.

Isolated system. I may have screwed the pooch in an earlier post. And it seems some internet science sites may vary. Some may use (open,closed) and others may be using (open, closed, isolated). I am being wary of this issue.

I'm now going with

Isolated : Thermous bottle ΔU=0 ΔS>=0 always and will tend to maximum.
Closed: Ideal piston ΔU=Q-W dS= δQ/T
Open: Rocket

Specifically, I'm going with this

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

Because is is the most compete and succinct I can find. Hyper-physics is good, but he doesn't talk about the context of macro-systems, just shows a glass of water. It led to some miscomceptions.

jrembold's is a bitch to read, but it is precise.

 

[itfitzme]

I disagree, a closed system allows energy but not matter and total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

You can add energy to a system and make it more ordered.
Even if you disagree.

The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction. In the article I posted it gave an example of what would happen with undirected energy. If you stand out in the sun to long it would cause mutations.The body cannot deal with undirected energy.

But that isn't always true. Plants are designed to absorb and direct sunlight.

 

[itfitzme]

Get this. Page 29,

Postulate: An Approach to Equilibrium. *An isolated system that is not in equilibrium will approach equilibrium if left undisturbed for a sufficiently long time.

Then

Remark 3: The above postulate would be false for a truely isolated system.

Ah, really?

 

[Steven_R]

I look at the websites for Creation Science or Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism and I see very smart people but who are delusional. Some of the people on those websites have degrees directly related to the ideas they are espousing, but ignore everything they were taught to justify to themselves just why their faith in a Bronze Age creation myth trumps what they know. They have a conclusion and then cherry pick evidence or twist it around to make it seem like all the science is false and that what is right backs up their religion. They use science to support a perversion of science.

Michael Behe is a biochemists who rejects evolution in favor of Intelligent Design with a mechanism called Irreducible Complexity. The problem is his entire community have come out with evidence that Irreducible Complexity is wrong. Dr. Behe is so respected, what with his admission that astrology is science, that his department at Lehigh University has a disclaimer about him on their website. Gerry Bouw has a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, which is not exactly a charm school. Robert J. Bennett got his PhD in physics from Stevens Institute of Technology, another excellent institution. They are also geocentrists (Sun revolves around the Earth), because the Bible tells them so. I'm not one to go out of my way to pick on a man's religion, but when a scientist has to either twist or disregard the evidence that is in front of his eyes in order to make the Bible work, there is something fundamentally wrong with that person still calling himself a scientist. Ptolemy said the Earth was unmoving and everything orbited Earth and it was accepted as such until 1610 when Galileo showed moons around Jupiter. It becomes impossible to ignore the evidence, so Tycho Brahe modifies the model to make every other planet's moons orbit their planet, all those planets orbit the Sun, which still orbits the Earth. Four centuries worth of observations and mathematical models that function versus the Bible and these scientists go with the Bible.

That's just a symptom, not the disease. The biggest problem is that we have a scientifically illiterate society. I can understand why. Science has answered the day to day questions (why do babies look like their parents, what causes the tides, why does the baking soda and vinegar volcano work) and what's left seems like a very esoteric subject that only matters to experts. Science is inaccessible to average people. The days of a guy rolling two balls down ramps is over. It now takes a decade of study to be able to understand these papers that are redefining the universe. I get it, but it is exceptionally dangerous to be scientifically illiterate on the most basic of matters.

The problem with websites like Answers in Genesis and other creationist sites is that for people who just don't know what the science says, it is easy to muddy the waters. When you have an agenda and an audience that doesn't know what they are reading/watching/hearing it is easy to bamboozle with pithy sayings, misdirections, half-truths, twisted logic, and outright lies. It's just another con-job to reinforce what the listener wants to hear. It's complicated by the fact that the science is difficult and that the scientist trying to refute the Creationist-types has to speak in non-technical terms. How do I really explain entropy to refute the Creationist idea of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when I can't use math because the audience never took Calc I? How do I explain how we know that dinosaurs were wiped out 65mya when the Creationist outright lies about radiometric dating and geological layering when I can't illustrate in technical terms just how we know those things are right? How do I show that molecular biology has used DNA in evolution when the people I'm talking to just don't have the vocabulary to have the conversation in the first place?

 

[Agent.Tom]

Yeah, he clearly spends too much time on science.

I use to but now just read and discuss many different subjects concerning science.

You make the mistake of reading "science" on Harun Yahya's website.

It's tempting to dismiss information out of hand considering the source and I'm guilty of doing it. But really you should resist the temptation and address the article. It's hardly possible that any source of loads of information could submit 100% lies. So... I venture to say there is some truth coming from that site. Maybe this article has some truth to it.

So rather than taking the lazy way out and dismissing something you don't read.. (which us Christians could never get away with when people attack the bible).. read it and tell youwerecreated where it is verifiably wrong.

 

[itfitzme]

"How do I really explain entropy to refute the Creationist idea of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when I can't use math because the audience never took Calc I? How do I explain how we know that dinosaurs were wiped out 65mya when the Creationist outright lies about radiometric dating and geological layering when I can't illustrate in technical terms just how we know those things are right? How do I show that molecular biology has used DNA in evolution when the people I'm talking to just don't have the vocabulary to have the conversation in the first place?"

I have enough trouble just being sure I don't mangle the interpretation of the math after I think I've figured it out.

The reason I picked the most incomprehensible publication on thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, is because I know it hasn't been misrepresented because I know nobody would bother misrepresenting it in a language that is incomprehensible in the first place.


You know, and I know, that if we want to make a suit that fits without wasting cloth, we have to measure. *And the math is the measure. *No recipe, in a cookbook, is written without precise measures. *No business man would have an accountamt that couldn't count. *In truth, we only really know a thing in so much as we can count it.

There really just is no other way. *If they can't count it, they don't know it.

For me, I've been in the lab, heating a bar, measuring the most infintesimal change, and comparing it to the ideal model. *And I know how absolutely minor is the difference between the noise and the model.*

Every scientist adds something to the greater body of science. No one person really knows all of it. *There is this interplay betweem the mathmeticians, theoretical physicists, and the experimental physicists such that the science slowly progresses forward. *

There is a point where you realize that it is all just a description. *Still, it is the best and simplest description. *

If you really want to, you can put the earth in the center, orbit the sun around it, and the planets about it. *We can put Jupiter in the middle. *We can put any planet in the middle. *In truth, there is a center of mass for the Solar system, an instantaneous point that keeps changing as thd Sun, the planets, their moons, and all the asteroids go zipping about. *But, because the Sun is the most massive of all the objects, the simplest, *and best description, is the one with it in the center. *

The truth of the matter is that if someone really wants to believe an idea, there is nothing that will convince them otherwise. They will find a way to wiggle their way to it and away from a more comprehensive truth. *What is important is what you think and if you find that it is consistent with everything that you know.

 

[itfitzme]

I use to but now just read and discuss many different subjects concerning science.

You make the mistake of reading "science" on Harun Yahya's website.

It's tempting to dismiss information out of hand considering the source and I'm guilty of doing it. But really you should resist the temptation and address the article. It's hardly possible that any source of loads of information could submit 100% lies. So... I venture to say there is some truth coming from that site. Maybe this article has some truth to it.

So rather than taking the lazy way out and dismissing something you don't read.. (which us Christians could never get away with when people attack the bible).. read it and tell youwerecreated where it is verifiably wrong.

"So rather than taking the lazy way out"

Because this tells me everything I need to know.

 

[itfitzme]

An isolated system is a closed system for which dU=0.
What is true for an isolated system is true for a closed system where dU=0.

A closed system is an open system where dM=0.
What is true for a closed system is true for an open system where dM=0.

Those are a quintuplet of statements that the reference doesn't make. They would be the "dumb" questions that one would ask as a student in his thermo class. They are the "obvious" ones that he wouldn't bother to write down.

 

[Steven_R]

You know, and I know, that if we want to make a suit that fits without wasting cloth, we have to measure. *And the math is the measure. *No recipe, in a cookbook, is written without precise measures. *No business man would have an accountamt that couldn't count. *In truth, we only really know a thing in so much as we can count it.

There really just is no other way. *If they can't count it, they don't know it.

Someone much wiser than me once said, "Don't be afraid of numbers. Analysis without data is not analysis; it's an opinion."

If it can't be quantified, it can't be analyzed. If it can't be analyzed, it isn't science.

 

[Big_D2]

Here is proof for macro-evolution:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

From 1988 till 2010, scientists from Michigan State created populations of e. coli and observed them evolve in a controlled experiment. When oxygen is present, e. coli cannot grow and citrate and that became a defining characteristic of this bacteria.

After 30,000 generations the e. coli gained the ability to grow on citrate. This trait has been observed on the bacteria afterwards.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, this is one of your only examples of what you call Macro evolution but is it really when you really look at the evidence ?

Here let's do that.


Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D.
Posted in: Creation/Evolution|By: Jonathan McLatchie|July 31, 20118 Comments

When Frank recently informed me that he planned to publish a guest article by atheist Tim Duck on the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, I was immediately intrigued. As someone with some background and academic training in biology (I hold a degree in the field), I looked forward to reading what Tim had to say. When Frank forwarded me Tim’s final draft of his essay, however, the result was a tremendous anti-climax. The first half of the essay (which you can view here) was essentially wasted in laying out elementary concepts of biology known by every freshman undergraduate. When he finally did get around to presenting his case, the result was disappointing.

We were treated to a lengthy discussion of Michigan State University biologist Rick Lenski’s now-famous experimental work on E. coli (about which we are not ignorant). The only other identifiable positive argument for the claim in question was the assertion – without justification – that an indefinite extrapolation from micro- to macro- evolution is warranted. But since this is what Tim – allegedly – set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.

But before getting into the specifics, allow me to highlight a few areas on which Tim and I are agreed. We agree that evolution possesses explicative power (we disagree over the extent). We agree that evolution does not entail atheism (one can accept evolution and remain a Christian theist). We agree that evolution, strictly speaking, has nothing to say on the origin of life. And we agree that argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy.


As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example — as I recall — was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn’t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.” Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek

That article where you source claims that E Coli absobs the citrate (Pos et al. 1998) is actually saying it converts it to acetate and succinate, not absorbing it. E Coli ONLY absorbs it after 20+ years of evolution.

 

[Steven_R]

That the E. Coli was actually observed evolving was just a bonus. The real payoff was reading how Dr. Lenski verbally (literarily?) bitch-slapped Andrew Schalfly in the process.

 

[Youwerecreated]

total entropy of a closed system never decreases.

You can add energy to a system and make it more ordered.
Even if you disagree.

The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction. In the article I posted it gave an example of what would happen with undirected energy. If you stand out in the sun to long it would cause mutations.The body cannot deal with undirected energy.

The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction.

You should quit while you're behind.

Oh but I don't think I am I will go more into detail when I get in front of a computer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Get this. Page 29,

Postulate: An Approach to Equilibrium. *An isolated system that is not in equilibrium will approach equilibrium if left undisturbed for a sufficiently long time.

Then

Remark 3: The above postulate would be false for a truely isolated system.

Ah, really?

I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.