Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

a reply to: cooperton

You are incorrect that entropy is always increasing. In systems that gain energy, it is not, for example the earth gains energy from the sun, which fuels all thermodynamic processes on earth. Sorry, but the thermodynamics argument has been refuted for a long time. It holds no weight whatsoever, just ignorance of how TD actually works. Yes you are conflating big time.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

Nope, you made that argument, not me. Equivocating the theory of evolution to the word "adaptation" is dishonest, and you know that. If I travel to Africa and stay there for 10 years, I adapt. That doesn't mean by body experiences evolutionary mutations, it just means I get used to the different environment and learn to deal with the challenges that arise from that. It's called evolution, your fallacy is dismissed.

So you say but all we see, all we can prove is adaptation because it happens.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. Adaptation happens in individual lifetimes. Evolution happens over generations. Stop the dishonest straw men.

Adaptation happens over generations, evolution does not happen, not in the way you are thinking.
The only part of biological evolution that can be proven is adaptation.
That is why the ever so bloated, all encompassing theory of evolution has to include adaptation.

100% wrong.

originally posted by: Toothache
a reply to: cooperton

You are incorrect that entropy is always increasing. In systems that gain energy, it is not, for example the earth gains energy from the sun, which fuels all thermodynamic processes on earth. Sorry, but the thermodynamics argument has been refuted for a long time. It holds no weight whatsoever, just ignorance of how TD actually works. Yes you are conflating big time.

In the universe as a whole, if disorder is increasing, how did order come to be from chaos? This shows that there was order in the beginning, rather than order somehow emerging from random chaotic interaction which is thermodynamically impossible.

It disproves the notion of random chance interactions creating ordered systems.

originally posted by: cooperton
In the universe as a whole, if disorder is increasing, how did order come to be from chaos? This shows that there was order in the beginning, rather than order somehow emerging from random chaotic interaction which is thermodynamically impossible.

It disproves the notion of random chance interactions creating ordered systems.

No, it has nothing to do with random chance, it is about addition or subtraction of heat.

Yes, the universe AS A WHOLE is cooling and it will lead to perceived disorder over time as thermodynamics processes cease to function. However, there are many systems within the universe today that are gaining energy, because they are located near giant fusion reactors (stars). That energy from the star fuels thermodynamic processes in the short term in that location, offsetting the entropy.

Yes, eventually, the sun will run out of fuel and cease to produce heat energy at a high enough level to offset the entropy, but that is a bridge we will cross when we come to it. Right now there is plenty of energy to sustain the processes. A system that is actively gaining energy isn't going to cool at the same rate as systems that are not.

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Renaming evolution to adaptation??!!??
You are renaming adaptation to evolution.
Do the names Empedocles and Aristotle ring any bells? Adaptation was noticed LONG before Darwin decided he didn't like God anymore and started his own religion.

Adaptation is adaptation.
It is the process by which organisms better fit their environment or as botanist Robert Greenleaf Leavitt in the journal Botanical Gazette coined it, "microevolution".
Anything beyond that is taken on faith. It is a belief, nothing more.

Nope, you made that argument, not me. Equivocating the theory of evolution to the word "adaptation" is dishonest, and you know that. If I travel to Africa and stay there for 10 years, I adapt. That doesn't mean by body experiences evolutionary mutations, it just means I get used to the different environment and learn to deal with the challenges that arise from that. It's called evolution, your fallacy is dismissed.

So you say but all we see, all we can prove is adaptation because it happens.

Repeating a fallacy does not make it true. Adaptation happens in individual lifetimes. Evolution happens over generations. Stop the dishonest straw men.

Adaptation happens over generations, evolution does not happen, not in the way you are thinking.
The only part of biological evolution that can be proven is adaptation.
That is why the ever so bloated, all encompassing theory of evolution has to include adaptation.

100% wrong.

Proof?

originally posted by: Toothache


No, it has nothing to do with random chance, it is about addition or subtraction of heat.

Addition or subtraction of heat is defined as enthalpy, not entropy.

Yes, eventually, the sun will run out of fuel and cease to produce heat energy at a high enough level to offset the entropy, but that is a bridge we will cross when we come to it. Right now there is plenty of energy to sustain the processes. A system that is actively gaining energy isn't going to cool at the same rate as systems that are not.

How do you think the sun became such an ordered system that it was able to give off energy for such a long time?

Consider the theorized end of the universe where entropy is maximized, it could never return to order. Since order cannot emerge from chaos, and order certainly exists, this means things must have been ordered from the beginning.

a reply to: Toothache

You just can't resists doing everything I said you would be doing can you? Standard modus operandi. Start a debate about (or obscure the meaning of, creating ambiguity for, then capitalizing on that fabricated ambiguity of) the word "evolution", ignoring that you already admitted that when those who do not believe in evolutionary philosophies concerning the topic of commen ancestry (or common descent) use the word "evolution" they are referring to what has been termed macroevolution, and not your equivocation of "evolution = long term adaptation", then denying that you equivocated "evolution" with "long term adaptation" (which it isn't, certainly not the way the word has been used by those who argued against evolutionary philosophies concerning the topic of common ancestry or common descent, and that is also not the intended impression given by those who use the mantra "evolution is a fact", who clearly want to give people the impression that 'macroevolution is a fact' or that 'the (so-called) theory of evolution is a fact', but they intentionally don't specify when using that phrase, even though it's obvious from the context that that is the impression they want to indoctrinate and condition people with). Accusing the authors of the articles I quoted of quote mining and spreading "religious propaganda" and supposedly not being a "scientific source" because it's not holy peer reviewed Scripture (when it's your 'gurus'*, the media, the entertainment industry and state education that are doing that; *: philosophers posing as scientists supposedly studying so-called "evolutionary biology", promoting religiously rooted evolutionary philosophies and myths hand in hand with the religion of scientism).

All in an effort to deflect and distract from the total lack of any real evidence for and contrary evidence to (macro)evolution. See what I did there? I said "evolution", but I made it clear that I'm talking about so-called "macroevolution" (i.e. the evolutionary philosophies involving the topic of common ancestry or descent, as described in the so-called "theory of evolution", which is still neither a scientific theory nor a testable scientific hypothesis, it's just an unverified fancy story, a false story/myth for which all the evidence from the fossil record, biology, biochemistry, genetics and the field of mutation research and mutation breeding, points in the opposite direction and shows this storyline to be in error), which you already admitted was the topic people were talking about here when they say "evolution", not "long term adaptation". So why even bring up that in your opinion "evolution = long term adaptation"? Because that's the direction you want to steer the discussion towards instead (while pretending it was a legitimate response to someone pointing out that adaptation is not evidence for evolution, i.e. so-called macroevolution), debating (obscuring) the word "evolution" and how it should or should not be used according to you, and how others use it wrongly and are equivocating things that shouldn't be equivocated, when you're the one doing that. As per Isaiah 5:20,21.

It's like talking to a Westboro baptist misapplying the teachings in the Bible to justify their opinions/beliefs and behaviour (or modus operandi). The main difference is that your Scriptures are holy peer reviewed Scriptures and your religion is scientism and your religious "teachers" (2 Timothy 4:3,4), your gurus, are evolutionary philosophers posing as scientists.

Your game is up.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. ...

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

...

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Let's talk about it some more so we can ignore and/or distract from the fact that the evidence from the fossil record and genetics shows the exact opposite of the story told in the so-called "theory of evolution" concerning so-called "macroevolution", i.e. the evolutionary philosophies and false stories/myths involving the topic of common ancestry or descent. As was well demonstrated and explained in the articles I quoted from, supported by admissions from those who refer to themselves and eachother as "evolutionists" themselves on the rare occasions they actually are honest or semi-honest about something important to the stories, philosophies and opinions they promote under the marketinglabel "science" or as "fact(ual)".

Hey, at least there's some measure of consistency to your modus operandi, it's continuously misleading and distracting from the actual evidence that is available for us to ponder about in relation to evolutionary philosophies and storylines, including the one involving so-called "chemical evolution" or the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" (a.k.a. abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, the notion of life emerging from inanimate matter by purely naturalistic causation and by chance, the notion that it's just a coincidence that we are here and that the earth is life-supporting).

Coming back to the expression "religion of scientism" that I used earlier (I actually added that later in an edit):

As soon as modern science was born in the 17th century, a clash between it and religion seemed inevitable. Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. ...

... was intensified by the Enlightenment ... movement that swept Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. ... “Its ancestral roots,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica, were found “in Greek philosophy.”

Mother Nature (Gaia) and Zeus worshippers promoting religiously motivated philosophies (philosophy).

Source: Part 19—17th to 19th century—Christendom Grapples With World Change (Religion’s Future in View of Its Past; Awake!—1989)

Clearly stated, science was slowly developing into a god, giving rise to scientism. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines this as “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation.”

Source: Science—Mankind’s Ongoing Search for Truth (Awake!—1993)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Toothache

All in an effort to deflect and distract from the total lack of any real evidence for and contrary evidence to (macro)evolution.

edit: All in an effort to deflect and distract from the total lack of any real evidence for and abundance of contrary evidence to (macro)evolution.

Hey, at least there's some measure of consistency to your modus operandi, it's continuously misleading and distracting from the actual evidence that is available for us to ponder about in relation to evolutionary philosophies and storylines, including the one involving so-called "chemical evolution" or the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" (a.k.a. abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, the notion of life emerging from inanimate matter by purely naturalistic causation and by chance, the notion that it's just a coincidence that we are here and that the earth is life-supporting).

edit: (a.k.a. abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, the notion of life spontaneously emerging from inanimate matter by purely naturalistic causation and by chance, the notion that it's just a coincidence that we are here and that the earth is life-supporting).

It's like talking to a Westboro baptist misapplying the teachings in the Bible to justify their opinions/beliefs and behaviour (or modus operandi). The main difference is that your Scriptures are holy peer reviewed Scriptures and your religion is scientism and your religious "teachers" (2 Timothy 4:3,4), your gurus, are evolutionary philosophers posing as scientists.

Your game is up.

edit: Your (or their*) game is up. *: In case you are merely a victim copying the behaviour of your gurus, your religious teachers and leaders.

I'm out of edit time.

originally posted by: Toothache
...
I get that your whole gimmick is to confuse people by posting long winded rhetoric, but try being direct and to the point. Instead of going off on silly tirade of propaganda.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Time for the usual modus operandi on this subforum and by fans of evolutionary philosophies now? ... as has happened before when people responded with some version of TLDR or complaints about me quoting too much ...

If I hadn't been so out of space there, I would have added your version of TLDR or complaint about me saying too much or using too many words (supposedly being too "long winded") as part of my description of what I was expecting.

The articles I quoted from were very direct and to the point. You just prefer the inconvenient facts that provide unambiguous evidence that contradicts evolutionary philosophies and demonstrates them to be myths/false stories to stay under the carpet. Hence, shorter commentary that you can more easily twist to distract from the underlying evidence for any statement made in contradiction to evolutionary philosophies is preferred. So you can cycle through your repetitive arguments and mantras. And talk past any evidence that demonstrates them to be invalid, irrational and/or propagandistic by cycling to the next one. Conveniently steering us away from the actual evidence from the fossil record, genetics, biology, biochemistry, mutation research, mutation breeding and regular breeding and what it really tells us about your favorite evolutionary philosophies, beliefs and myths.

So that in the end, any conversation or debate becomes fruitless bickering. The main motive ascribed to those who knowadays are referred to as "trolls" (on the internet). The "inconvenient facts" mentioned in the article "Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!" no longer being discussed, responded to or even thought about by those already firmly entrenched in their evolutionary camp. Digging that trench a little deeper, both for yourself and those taking you seriously (or on your side, so to speak).

“Keep reminding them of these things, instructing* [Lit., “bearing thorough witness to.”] them before God not to fight about words, something of no usefulness at all because it harms* [Or “destroys; overturns.”] those listening. . . . reject empty speeches . . . for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene.” (2 Timothy 2:14-17)

originally posted by: cooperton
Addition or subtraction of heat is defined as enthalpy, not entropy.

So semantics and equivocation again. Sorry but this is as bad as your "logic" in biology nonsense and almost as bad as renaming evolution to adaptation. with the lies.

I was talking about thermodynamics. Try actually understanding the basics of a topic before discussing it. What's worse is that you've had this same misunderstanding for YEARS and every time it is corrected you ignore it, deny it and rehash it again later as if the argument never happened. Using equivocation is as dishonest as it gets, but this is expected from young earth creationists in their money grab.

How do you think the sun became such an ordered system that it was able to give off energy for such a long time?

You defined order as not experiencing entropy. Stars sustain themselves by nuclear fusion, and yes they DO experience entropy, it's just offset by the fusion process.

Consider the theorized end of the universe where entropy is maximized, it could never return to order. Since order cannot emerge from chaos, and order certainly exists, this means things must have been ordered from the beginning.

You are making zero sense here. Heat came from the big bang, not random chaos. As I said 50 times now, chaos isn't a source. Funny how you accept that hypothesis regarding the end of the universe when it can't be proved and make assumptions about it, yet deny evolution, something proved way beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, you didn't answer a single point in the post. You just denied it and lied again. Par for the course.

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't read walls of text. If you aren't capable of point vs point conversation and just want to continue spewing JW propaganda in gish gallop form instead of addressing the points made, then I have no reason to waste my time.

DP

originally posted by: Toothache
"Addition or subtraction of heat is defined as enthalpy, not entropy."

So semantics and equivocation again. Sorry but this is as bad as your "logic" in biology nonsense and almost as bad as renaming evolution to adaptation.

with the lies.

Lol it's the definition of enthalpy. You got something wrong and now you're trying to cover by calling me a liar.

I was talking about thermodynamics. Try actually understanding the basics of a topic before discussing it.

Yeah in thermodynamics change of heat is enthalpy, not entropy. When you said entropy is about addition or subtraction of heat you were patently wrong, and now ,as all arrogant people do, you're lashing out to defend your error

What's worse is that you've had this same misunderstanding for YEARS

No it looks like you don't know what entropy is. The fact you're doubling down instead of admitting you were wrong shows you're not fit for objective dialogue.

You defined order as not experiencing entropy.

No I defined it as the opposite of entropy. It's called negentropy technically.

Stars sustain themselves by nuclear fusion, and yes they DO experience entropy, it's just offset by the fusion process.

Why would fusion offset entropy? Nuclear fusion in stars increases entropy lol. You've been wrong about everything so far.

As I said 50 times now, chaos isn't a source.

So you admit chaos is not the source... do you admit the source is order (negentropic)?

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah in thermodynamics change of heat is enthalpy, not entropy. When you said entropy is about addition or subtraction of heat you were patently wrong, and now ,as all arrogant people do, you're lashing out to defend your error

THERMOdynamics is about heat. Entropy is directly caused by things cooling over time. You literally have no clue what you are talking about. Addition of heat energy offsets entropy. That is the fact you have repeatedly ignored by equivocating. Yes, it's dishonest. Be better than that.

Why would fusion offset entropy? Nuclear fusion in stars increases entropy lol. You've been wrong about everything so far.

Fusion produces heat energy. Heat offsets entropy and fuels all thermodynamic processes on earth. Entropy is no problem for evolution and won't be until the sun stops putting out energy. This is very basics of thermodynamics. It's no different than putting gas in a car to keep it going. It's not a problem until you have no source of gasoline.

Sadly, it's you that has been wrong about everything, but keep projecting that onto us.

So you admit chaos is not the source... do you admit the source is order (negentropic)?

Order / chaos are not sources they are descriptions. It's like how you keep romanticizing "random chance," that is a probability, not a source.

originally posted by: Toothache

THERMOdynamics is about heat. Entropy is directly caused by things cooling over time. You literally have no clue what you are talking about. Addition of heat energy offsets entropy. That is the fact you have repeatedly ignored by equivocating. Yes, it's dishonest. Be better than that.

man you really are a toothache. Entropy is not caused by cooling over time. The cooling you are referring to when entropic maximum is achieved is due to the fact that reactions will cease to react because everything becomes entropically maximized and therefore no spontaneous reactions will occur.

Fusion produces heat energy. Heat offsets entropy and fuels all thermodynamic processes on earth.

Fusion is a spontaneous reaction partly due to the increase in entropy from the reaction. It doesn't "offset" entropy. It increases entropy. Heat release or intake, again, is a matter of enthalpy.

Just do a google search to affirm what I'm saying so you can stop rambling about something you very apparently only learned about this past week.

originally posted by: Toothache
Order / chaos are not sources they are descriptions.

They are the descriptions of the state of a given system. It is objective and even mathematical. Entropy (disorder), and not negentropy(order), will increase spontaneously over time. This is why biological systems (order) could not have come to be from an initial disorder in the universe. It is the fundamental equation for determining thermodynamics of chemical equations