Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.

but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system.

Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law.

It's because they don't know what the 2nd Law said. Now you do.

Will you keep repeating their error? Or admit you were wrong to use their argument?

You're correct they are saying that the 2nd law would interfere with evolution but the whole article goes in to why. I will tomorrow read it again and point out why they say the 2nd law interferes with evolution.

hey slapdick that's one of the errors .....

 

[Youwerecreated]

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

why is it you always pull this shitty old sock out of your ass when it's in a crack?
there is no possible way you could know that there is NO LIFE on other planets.
the best analogy describing ass hats like you is. you peeked out your window and erroneously decided that all your neighbors are dead or the neighborhood had been abandon long ago..
neither is fact..

There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good night all,talk to some of you tomorrow.

 

[daws101]

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

why is it you always pull this shitty old sock out of your ass when it's in a crack?
there is no possible way you could know that there is NO LIFE on other planets.
the best analogy describing ass hats like you is. you peeked out your window and erroneously decided that all your neighbors are dead or the neighborhood had been abandon long ago..
neither is fact..

There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?

wrong you just wish it was...
saying there is no life other than on earth is a false assumption because we don't have the means at this time to know that.
god on the other hand, the supposed creator of all things should be easy to spot.

 

[itfitzme]

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

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

Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.

but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system.

Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law.

It's because they don't know what the 2nd Law said. Now you do.

Will you keep repeating their error? Or admit you were wrong to use their argument?

I went back and read that article I did not see where they were making that argument.

You misquoted their argument?
How sad for you.

 

[itfitzme]

"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."

Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.

And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements

The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.

 

[Steven_R]

I am impressed with a judges knowledge of science in that case

His understanding was leaps and bounds beyond the misguided fools on the school board and the delusional morons at the Discovery Institute.

Really,I am sure if it's anything like the dover trial that judge had one of the plaintiffs write up his judgement. hardly fair would you agree ?

What?

 

[Steven_R]

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?

why is it you always pull this shitty old sock out of your ass when it's in a crack?
there is no possible way you could know that there is NO LIFE on other planets.
the best analogy describing ass hats like you is. you peeked out your window and erroneously decided that all your neighbors are dead or the neighborhood had been abandon long ago..
neither is fact..

There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?

Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is not only possible but probable that there is life somewhere out there.

That said, the only life that we know about is what's on the Earth and whatever bacteria hitched a ride on any of our various space shots. Simply put, extraterrestrial life has not been proven to exist. There is no example we can point to and say "this is what we've found."

There is zero evidence for the existence of whatever supernatural concepts one wants to believe in. Indeed, the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine.

 

[itfitzme]

They do scrub the space probes, don't they? Or are we now sending bacteria out into the universe ? And if not, why not? Why not send bacteria and the like out ahead of us, just to see what grows?

 

[Steven_R]

They do scrub the space probes, don't they? Or are we now sending bacteria out into the universe ? And if not, why not? Why not send bacteria and the like out ahead of us, just to see what grows?

They try, but I doubt that they manage to kill 100% of all the bugs that ever come in contract with our probes, landers, and satellites. I guess the hope is any stowaways aren't extremophiles an simply won't survive the journey or very long at the destination.

It's one of the concerns about a mission to Europa. What if we do manage to get a probe there, get through the ice, and send our robot into an alien ecosystem with some hitchhiker from Earth on it? How can we prevent that? It's one of the reasons the Russians have been so reluctant to drill into Lake Vostok.

 

[westwall]

Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

The Earth is as open a system now as it was back then.

 

[itfitzme]

So far, 786 known planets and one with known life.

That puts us at P(life)=1/786. That is a statistically significant sample. But, we should caution that we haven't been to all of them, so the resolution is not good.

There are nine known habitable planets. P(habitable)=9/786. That is statistically significant, though again, caution on that resolution.

Probability of life on a habitable planet. P(life on habitable)=1/9. Not statistically significant.

BTW: SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence

Why? Because we can't find any on Earth, that's why!!

 

[westwall]

This is the bible for planetary habitability.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Habitable-Planets-Man-Stephen-Dole/dp/B002F9FUS6]Habitable Planets for Man: Stephen Dole: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Derideo_Te]

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

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

Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Since matter can freely fall to earth from space and does so on a regular basis the only "weak argument" is your belief in a "creator".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.

 

[Hollie]

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.

And yet, energy absorbed by this planet from solar radiation is testable and measurable.

How do we test for the gods?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."

Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.

And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements

The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.

I want to know for sure whether the theory of evolution contradicts the 2nd law. Tell me why it doesn't ? seriously this is but one of many arguments why the theory does not happen the way that is claimed in theory.

I am not purposefully trying to mislead anyone,I want the facts. It seems to me the creationists make a good argument if you think just because energy is pumped in to something it makes it better to me that is wishful thinking. Because we all know if we do not possess the mechanisms to control the energy and use it to our benefit it would be destructive to us, Which is a case if a person is out in the sun to long without protection.

This is also a problem for those that think chemical evolution happened and in the process formed life. These chemicals baking in the sun or exposed to oxygen and or worse yet these chemicals trying bond and form amino acids or any molecule are soluble in water.

We keep coming back to it taking a living organism, to reproduce another living organism, not natural processes producing the origins of life. Anyone who is being honest in science would admit this fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."

Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.

And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements

The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.

1.The second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.

This is not claiming what you're claiming sorry. This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.

So far the creationists argument is solid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

His understanding was leaps and bounds beyond the misguided fools on the school board and the delusional morons at the Discovery Institute.

Really,I am sure if it's anything like the dover trial that judge had one of the plaintiffs write up his judgement. hardly fair would you agree ?

What?

Yes , the Judges closing argument, which was his decision, was written out by a member of the plaintiffs, which was a member of the aclu in dover PA.