Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Steven_R]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I promised myself I wasn't going to continue this nonsense, but I will one last time.

Let's try this in simple terms. The Four Laws of Thermodynamics is all about heat (work energy).

The Zeroth Law concerns heat equilibrium.
The First Law says you can't get more energy in a system than you start with.
The Second Law says as time goes on, heat (work energy) decreases. The only way to stop that loss is to get to Absolute Zero.
The Third Law says it is impossible to get to Absolute Zero.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (heat movement) has to do with remaining work energy in a system.

As time goes on and stuff happens, the energy available for work (heat) decreases. The disorder is a concept of statistical mechanics relating to work energy decreasing, not with genetics or life, or whatever other talking points your pseudoscientists are feeding you.

There are many fine books on the subject of Thermodynamics and physics in general. Please read one before you continue this any further.

Great explanation but environment does have an effect on biological organisms. What do you think we use to induce mutations ? that is right radiation, is this not an energy source in our environment ?

The 2nd law does have an effect on this planet and there is no way around it.

You're being intentionally obtuse. If you're not willing to listen to what the physics mean, then I can do nothing for you. Go bang your Bible if that's what you want, but it's not a science text no matter how many crackpots and zealots you find to claim otherwise.

James Clerk Maxwell > Moses

 

[DarkLion]

I have no reason to believe the God that created all we see has any limitations other than he can't sin.

But I challenge any all critics to listen to the explanations and the logic in these videos.

I don't have time to watch your argumentum ad youtubium

 

[itfitzme]

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. What is funny is the clowns responding to his videos are using the very same attacks, rhetoric, and nonsensical arguments that have been made here. I challenge you all to watch these videos.

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (1 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (2 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (3 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (4 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (5 of 5) - YouTube

Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning.

He begins with invoking the existance of god as the cause of all natural laws.

He turns "tendency" into "must" and "unlikely into "never". He does this in his first example, the black and white balls, arranged in lines. ( 7min 50sec)

"There are heaps of different arrangements you would get from that. But, I think that you all can be fairly sure that viewed from a distance they would end up being grey.

So, in other words, if you wanted to go the other way, if you wanted to go back from this state to the other state, what would you have to do? Sort them all out. In another words, you would have to apply intelligent programming. You would have to choose according to a plan. Thing, left by themselves, without intelligent programming. Because, you see, things left by themselves, without intelligent programming, without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case? Why is it when you shake the box, you're not going to get the letter A or your name spelled out in black or white balls or something? Why is it that you're going to get lots of combination but basically they will all be grey, they will all be randon? The answer is chance."

The errors are numerous and, in some cases, disingenuous. Atoms are not simply balls. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms combine to form water. I can shake a jar of water for hours and it will still be arranged so that two hydrogen atoms are attached to one oxygen. I must, through electrolysis, apply a considerable amount of energy to disassociate the hydrogen "balls" from the oxygen "balls" to get a more random collection of H2 and O2 gases. Once done, a small spark will trigger a catastrophic exposion in which the H2 and O2 gases once again combine to form water. And they will do so quite spontameously. It requires intelligent intervention, electrolysis, to create a more random mixture of O2 and H2. A small, simply unintelligent spark, creates a cascade to greater "order", H2O, water.

The problem with the example is he repeatedly takes "fairly sure" and assumes always, "they would end up being grey". Well, no the wouldn't. As raw probabilities, they would often arrange in a "pattern" that we would "recognize". While, more often than not, they would come to rest in some random arrangement that appeared grey from a distance, they would also come to rest, in many different patterns, even partial patterns, that we would recognize as "orderly". The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

Further, it would be far more appropriate to add magnets to the balls, little south poles to the white balls and little north poles to the black balls. Then, as nature really does, when the box of balls is shaken, the balls would stick together as atoms really do.

All in all, the speaker simply demomstrates his disengenuous rhetorical trick repeatedly, as in "without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case?" "will tend" suddenly becomes "in every case".

 

[Steven_R]

The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

That's really a great way to conceptualize the process.

 

[Hollie]

Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning..

Not surprisingly, Carl Wieland has been associated with two of the more notorious Christian creationist ministries: AIG and Creation Ministries International.

Strange how we're told that creationism / ID is not a religious claim when those flailing their pom poms for creationism are typically the same snake-oil salesmen fronting for fundamentalist Christian ministries.

Strange, that!

 

[Steven_R]

Irreducible complexity. ID is not science, yeah right !

Molecular Machine Bacterial Flagella - Intelligent Design - Scott Minnich - Video Excerpt - Video

Design flaws.

Refuting The "Bad Design" Vs. Intelligent Design Argument - William Lane Craig - Video

Irreducible complexity is a non-scientific appeal to supernaturalism proposed by Behe.

It's been dismissed as a crank claim by the relevant science community.

I wonder if Behe started sprouting his Irreducible Complexity stuff before he was granted tenure. I can't find his CV (that's odd in and of itself) and his Lehigh University webpage just has selected publications, but it would be interesting to see which came first.

As it is, his department has a disclaimer on their website all but writing him off as a kook.

 

[itfitzme]

I am reminded of what I call, "The Fallacy Of Small Samples". I've had to break myself of it, or at least partition it off, to assure I don't fall to it inadvertently.

It goes like this:

You go to the filing cabinet, at work, and pull a file. Upon inspection, you find that it has errors in the documentation. What do you conclude?

A common reasoning is that, as the odds me pulling the one file with and error is so small, then the cabinet must be full of errors.

This could not be further from the truth. The reality is that no conclusion can be drawn. The reality is that a sample size of one tells us nothing about the distribution of errors in the cabinet. In order to gauge that distribution, even under the simpest of statistical sampling, to be 95% confident, we must randomly pull 30+ files.

I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen". If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen. Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.

But that nature has non-random tendencies, isn't sufficient proof of god. Naturalism, and science, examines nature, recognizes that there are non-random processes, then compares these to each other to produce an explaination for this non-ramdomness within the context of nature.

What Carl did, in the video series, was to begin with the supposition that god is responsible for all forces of nature, even gravity. He defines "non-random" as being caused by god, presents an example, a weak one at that, of balls becoming arranges in a pattern by human intervention, ignoring that they will also be arranged in patterns by pure chance, then invokes the "Shit doesn't happen" fallacy as proof that god must exists.

In short, he says god causes patterns, patterns exist, therefor god exists. It is the circular reasoning that is repeatedly pointed to. He simply obscures the nature of his circular reasoning by lengthening his argument, a lengthening that requires repeated use of probability fallacies, like "tends to" becomes "always", and "unlikely" becomes "never".

Now, this isn't to say that single samples are not ever indicative of a larger pattern. I have learned, and a bit late in life, that when a person lies, I cam be sure that it is a pattern of behavior. Life, and people, are not random in nature. The do exhibit non-random patterns due to feedback.

I can be sure that, because something so simple as oxygen and hydrogen gas will arrange itself into a new, non-random arrangement, called water, then more patterns of arrangement are possible, quite to the contrary of simple statistics.

I can be sure that, as Carl uses logical fallacies in his first video, then he does so in the remaining. And I don't need to invoke some supernatural force, "the devil", to account for the nature of evil that he represents.

 

[Steven_R]

I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen". If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen. Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.

But that nature has non-random tendencies, isn't sufficient proof of god. Naturalism, and science, examines nature, recognizes that there are non-random processes, then compares these to each other to produce an explaination for this non-ramdomness within the context of nature.

Someone mentioned to me that even though there is randomness, it can lead to predictable results. Snowflakes fall, completely randomly, but snowdrifts always seem to show up in the same place. The geology, weather patterns, the mechanics of snow all add up to turn a random event into a predictable one. We can't predict where a particular snowflake will end up but we can predict the behavior of a whole lot of them.

 

[itfitzme]

The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

That's really a great way to conceptualize the process.

Well, we can thank Bohr, Boltzmann, and others for their honest accounting of the observations that nature presented them with, for not being stuck with the dogma of their own minds, born out of our experiences in a macro world of continuous spectrums.

If not for them, I wouldn't get it. I can be sure that I would never have gotten it.

Rigth now, I am still stuck at being able to transition from spread spectrums to descrete probabilities. In general, I understand it. Binomial processes become multinomial when grouped. These become normal ans Poisson distributions, in the limit. Normal becomes t distributions for smaller sample sizes. That is all fine.

Where I remain stuck is two fold, in actual application. If I, say, happen to run across my housemate, repeatedly during the day, how do I deal with or divide up a continuous time spectrum into something managable so I can determine the odds of us crossing paths. What are the odds that he would randomly end up in the kitchen, shortly after I start cooking, if he just happened to need to do something completely independent. I swear that guy shows up because he heard me, and just pretends he has a "reason".

The other is the descrete number of arrangements of gas molecules in that isolated box. S=k*ln(#_arrangements), basically. #_arrangements is a phase space of qualities that fully describe the ultimate particles. Those qualities are vector kinetic energies and momentums, I think. And those are quantized to Plank energies and monemtums. I think that's the thing there. But, a) I don't have Borh or Boltzmann's observations to guide me and b) they haven't personnally explained it to me. All I've got to go on is someone heard it from someone else that heard it from someone else. And I've read enough crap to know how badly that can go.

Quantum time isn't going to cut it, in the first one. The odds of "this minute", "this ten", "this hour" is managable but what about overlaps? I'm there for the first half of this ten, he showed up im the last half, we never met but the calculation is as if we did. Does descrete time periods produce a valid result regardless of the length chosen? What is the criteria for a valid length? Is it convergent or divergent in the limit?

And, for the box, which the Plank units are specified, is it a constant +/- half a plank unit where The constant is a continuous variable, or is the variable itself descrete and then, where do they line up on my otherwise continuous number scale? Is it at zero or something to do with the box size? In other words, how do I define the location and size of the "quantum wells" in that box of black and white balls?

Grrr

 

[itfitzme]

I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen". If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen. Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.

But that nature has non-random tendencies, isn't sufficient proof of god. Naturalism, and science, examines nature, recognizes that there are non-random processes, then compares these to each other to produce an explaination for this non-ramdomness within the context of nature.

Someone mentioned to me that even though there is randomness, it can lead to predictable results. Snowflakes fall, completely randomly, but snowdrifts always seem to show up in the same place. The geology, weather patterns, the mechanics of snow all add up to turn a random event into a predictable one. We can't predict where a particular snowflake will end up but we can predict the behavior of a whole lot of them.

Yeah, it is awkward.

The Normal Random Distribution is not just any old random distribution.

We can't say exactly what days it will rain on this coming year, but we know the majority will likely happen during the winter and not during the summer. We can't say exactly how much rain, but we can say that it is higly likely to be more than some amount.

It always comes down to odds. And odds have a pattern.

Most people that view nine balls lined up into ten holes, with one random hole left open, will still recognize a line. Suddenly, Carl's, random order of things, isn't so random anymore.

It randomly rained five out of seven days this week, it really doesn't matter which particular days were not rainy days. That is still a lot of rain.

 

[itfitzme]

Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning..

Not surprisingly, Carl Wieland has been associated with two of the more notorious Christian creationist ministries: AIG and Creation Ministries International.

Strange how we're told that creationism / ID is not a religious claim when those flailing their pom poms for creationism are typically the same snake-oil salesmen fronting for fundamentalist Christian ministries.

Strange, that!

No pattern there. Just coincidence, completely random.

I learned this trick of taking low probabilities and concluding no probability, here, from analysing YWC. I wasn't aware of the logic fallacies last week. He presented them, I recognized them, then they were clearly repeated by Carl in his video.

Coincidence? I don't know..

 

[daws101]

The ID advocates are a thorn in evolutionists sides.That is funny darwinism of the gaps.

Francis Collins, Evolution and "Darwin of the Gaps" - Evolution News & Views

Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - Video

The Bacterial Flagellum ? Truly An Engineering Marvel! | Uncommon Descent

Molecular Biology Animations - Demo Reel - Video

all the above are not scientifically valid...

 

[daws101]

Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?

What created god? There has to be a beginning somewhere, at some point something spawned from nothing. So far, the big bang is a far more viable theory than celestial faerie tales

According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.

that would be the alleged word of god ...!

 

[daws101]

Irreducible complexity. ID is not science, yeah right !

Molecular Machine Bacterial Flagella - Intelligent Design - Scott Minnich - Video Excerpt - Video

Design flaws.

Refuting The "Bad Design" Vs. Intelligent Design Argument - William Lane Craig - Video

Irreducible complexity is a non-scientific appeal to supernaturalism proposed by Behe.

It's been dismissed as a crank claim by the relevant science community.

rreducible complexity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity as used in Systems Theory, see Irreducible complexity (Emergence).

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.

Um, no. There is an inherent logic to the universe and to life. To the casual observer nature may seem like pure chaos, and to a certain extent it is, but beneath the chaos there is very fundamental logic to it all. The laws of physics, for example.

To say that god has always existed is little more than a cop out.

I have no reason to believe the God that created all we see has any limitations other than he can't sin.

But I challenge any all critics to listen to the explanations and the logic in these videos.

if god had no limitations then sin would be an act of self discipline, not something he could not do, but would not do..
to sin god would have had to sin to know what it is and why not to do it...
since god is imaginary, believers endow god with every conceivable super power they can dream up!

 

[itfitzme]

What created god? There has to be a beginning somewhere, at some point something spawned from nothing. So far, the big bang is a far more viable theory than celestial faerie tales

According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.

Not only does god defy all logic, it defies all reason, all sense, all nature, and all sanity. It is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

On the other hand, logic and reason are grounded in the experience of nature. Life is nature and inherently makes sense, defying nothing. Logic and reason of nature, biology, and physics are born out of observation of nature, biology, and physics. So life is logical, natural, reasonable, sensical, and sane.

The only thing that defies nature is a mind that refuses to accept nature, to learn from it, to change to correspond to it. That is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

The more I read and concider these things, the clearer becomes how ordinary is insanity. Insanity is refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update.

They say, insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. "refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update" is the same thing.

Naturalism and science are inherently sane, logical, reasonable, and natural, because they constantly accept the reality of nature as it presents and reveals itself, on its own terms. Creationism refuses to accept reality, warping and twisting reason and logic into the most unnatural manner, in a desperate attempt to continue adhering to an old and defunct concept, expecting different results.

 

[itfitzme]

Geez, am I getting testy.

 

[daws101]

Geez, am I getting testy.

time you had a snickers bar!

 

[daws101]

How To Differentiate Between Subjective and Objective Observations

By Mina Sorvese

There are two types of observations, subjective and objective. Telling the difference between subjective and objective observations is relatively simple once you are aware of what you are looking for.

The key differences between subjective and objective observations are exactly as the words imply, "subjective" meaning within the mind and "objective" which has actual material existence in the real world.

If something is subjective, it relates to a person's inner feelings, opinions, and thoughts. Something that is subjective cannot be proven or dis-proven, you cannot prove a person has a certain thought or feeling about something nor can you say with any certainty that they do not think or feel a certain way. For example if I were to mention that I had a headache without anything to go on other than my words, you could not know if it were true or not, it is subjective.

Something that is objective can be proven or dis-proven. If I were to say something were gooey and you were to touch and feel that yes it is indeed gooey, it would be an objective observation. Objective observations are material and can be felt, seen, tasted etc. If I were to say I had a headache and you could see that a large nail was sticking into my head, you could safely assume that my head were aching. Your observation would be objective based upon the material evidence, being the nail. A person may indicate that they are tired simply by stating that they are feeling tired. Without any physical evidence, yawning, drooping eyelids, slow movements... there is not any way to truly know if it is fact or not, making this subjective. If the same person were to begin yawning or better yet, to fall asleep, it will have become objective, because if they have fallen asleep it has been proven that they were tired.
How To Differentiate Between Subjective and Objective Observations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. What is funny is the clowns responding to his videos are using the very same attacks, rhetoric, and nonsensical arguments that have been made here. I challenge you all to watch these videos.

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (1 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (2 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (3 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (4 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (5 of 5) - YouTube

Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning.

He begins with invoking the existance of god as the cause of all natural laws.

He turns "tendency" into "must" and "unlikely into "never". He does this in his first example, the black and white balls, arranged in lines. ( 7min 50sec)

"There are heaps of different arrangements you would get from that. But, I think that you all can be fairly sure that viewed from a distance they would end up being grey.

So, in other words, if you wanted to go the other way, if you wanted to go back from this state to the other state, what would you have to do? Sort them all out. In another words, you would have to apply intelligent programming. You would have to choose according to a plan. Thing, left by themselves, without intelligent programming. Because, you see, things left by themselves, without intelligent programming, without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case? Why is it when you shake the box, you're not going to get the letter A or your name spelled out in black or white balls or something? Why is it that you're going to get lots of combination but basically they will all be grey, they will all be randon? The answer is chance."

The errors are numerous and, in some cases, disingenuous. Atoms are not simply balls. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms combine to form water. I can shake a jar of water for hours and it will still be arranged so that two hydrogen atoms are attached to one oxygen. I must, through electrolysis, apply a considerable amount of energy to disassociate the hydrogen "balls" from the oxygen "balls" to get a more random collection of H2 and O2 gases. Once done, a small spark will trigger a catastrophic exposion in which the H2 and O2 gases once again combine to form water. And they will do so quite spontameously. It requires intelligent intervention, electrolysis, to create a more random mixture of O2 and H2. A small, simply unintelligent spark, creates a cascade to greater "order", H2O, water.

The problem with the example is he repeatedly takes "fairly sure" and assumes always, "they would end up being grey". Well, no the wouldn't. As raw probabilities, they would often arrange in a "pattern" that we would "recognize". While, more often than not, they would come to rest in some random arrangement that appeared grey from a distance, they would also come to rest, in many different patterns, even partial patterns, that we would recognize as "orderly". The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

Further, it would be far more appropriate to add magnets to the balls, little south poles to the white balls and little north poles to the black balls. Then, as nature really does, when the box of balls is shaken, the balls would stick together as atoms really do.

All in all, the speaker simply demomstrates his disengenuous rhetorical trick repeatedly, as in "without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case?" "will tend" suddenly becomes "in every case".

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.