Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth


Thank you for successfully demonstrating that you actually have no knowledge regarding thermodynamics. None of those patterns are an ensemble. Thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to say about the kind of order we intuitively perceive on a daily basis. Even if Earth were a closed system evolution would not necessarily be an example of negentropy just because our minds perceive it that way. It has become clear that you have done no actual research in regards to evolution and are instead parroting talking points from Creationist propaganda.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Thank you for successfully demonstrating that you actually have no knowledge regarding thermodynamics. None of those patterns are an ensemble. Thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to say about the kind of order we intuitively perceive on a daily basis. Even if Earth were a closed system evolution would not necessarily be an example of negentropy just because our minds perceive it that way. It has become clear that you have done no actual research in regards to evolution and are instead parroting talking points from Creationist propaganda.

So are you saying the law of thermodynamics does not say that the universel law of decay is true?

Every system, will run down, decay and run out of energy and wind down, or dissapear.
Except evolution right? Why is it that evolution is winding up in an ever upward spiral of betterment of all of the species of life thorugh the natural process of selection..

reply to post by itsthetooth


Once again you are ignoring two vital factors in the false claim of the unnamed creationist site you are using.

1.) The concept of entropy does not apply to Earth as it is not a closed system. In fact the concept of entropy does not apply to anything except, possibly, the universe as a whole. There are many examples of negentropy. For example, the Sun is constantly creating new energy.

2.) The definition of entropy you are using is wrong. It has nothing to do with order and disorder as they are typically defined. Just because you perceive evolution to be an orderly process does not mean that it is. In fact the thermodynamic concepts of entropy and negentropy are inapplicable to evolution.

So, please for once admit that you are wrong. Admit that you got bad information. Admit that you don't actually have a grasp on the material you are parroting. ATS' motto is "Deny Ignorance" yet here you are trying to fight me on a very clear cut matter of your being wrong. In other words you are embracing ignorance because in your mind it solidifies your worldview. What you are demonstrating to us all is a very clear cut case of cognitive dissonance.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Once again you are ignoring two vital factors in the false claim of the unnamed creationist site you are using.

1.) The concept of entropy does not apply to Earth as it is not a closed system. In fact the concept of entropy does not apply to anything except, possibly, the universe as a whole. There are many examples of negentropy. For example, the Sun is constantly creating new energy.

That doesn't make any sense, as though earth is not part of the universe.

2.) The definition of entropy you are using is wrong. It has nothing to do with order and disorder as they are typically defined. Just because you perceive evolution to be an orderly process does not mean that it is. In fact the thermodynamic concepts of entropy and negentropy are inapplicable to evolution.

Well now I'm understanding you. There is no way in hell your going to convince me that all of this life is one giant oversized mistake.

So, please for once admit that you are wrong. Admit that you got bad information. Admit that you don't actually have a grasp on the material you are parroting. ATS' motto is "Deny Ignorance" yet here you are trying to fight me on a very clear cut matter of your being wrong. In other words you are embracing ignorance because in your mind it solidifies your worldview. What you are demonstrating to us all is a very clear cut case of cognitive dissonance.

Well not at all, I think its pretty clear. I'm not stuck between two ideas here, I think they have applied thermodynamics to evolution in a very honest way.
There is no way that these things happen without a driving force, and IMO there would also have to be a creator behind that force as well, which actually places evolutionism back into the lap of creation.
Of course we only look at creation because its all we know at this time. But like I have stated before, I think there is something else out there that we don't quite understand yet.

reply to post by itsthetooth


As I said, the only place entropy could possibly apply is the universe as a whole. It's possible that the universe is a closed system and thus does not have any new energy coming in. Thus, the universe will eventually experience an entropic death. However, the various systems that compose the universe are not closed systems. As I said before, the Sun is constantly producing new energy from matter that comes into our solar system. This energy is then released by the Sun and is absorbed by every object in the solar system. This means that every object has new energy being introduced into its system. Now, the second law of thermodynamics, which encompasses the concept of entropy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system. In other words, if a system is closed it cannot have new energy introduced, nor can it have energy removed. If the Earth could not have new energy introduced into its system all life would have died long ago as heat is a form of energy and the Earth is incapable of producing its own heat.

As I have said previously, it is obvious that you know nothing about thermodynamics. The sooner you are actually capable of admitting this the sooner you might actually learn something. Creationists have been trying to use thermodynamics to disprove evolution for years now. As a result there are numerous sources that explain why this is false. Of course if you had been doing actual research instead of simply looking for things that support your worldview you would have stumbled upon many of these sources. So, please, stop trying to argue that thermodynamics disproves evolution. It's even more pathetic than some of your other premises.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Well I don't consider myself versed on the subject of thermodynamics. I will say that the principles should apply to all planets period. As a whole and seperatly. I'm not getting how your claiming only as a whole. We are closed to our own planet, and the life here is not subject to other things in the universe aside from sunlight.

Yet we do expect science to be the same no matter where we go providing we understand it correctly.
I don't think science changes once we are off this planet, but I have never been off this planet so I'm guessing. Regardless, the example referred to life here, life that started here, and life that is evolving here. I think the rule fits. Even if it doesn't it is a tad fishy how evolution is the only thing winding up.

Now, the second law of thermodynamics, which encompasses the concept of entropy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system.

I have heard this part before and always believed it.

if a system is closed it cannot have new energy introduced, nor can it have energy removed. If the Earth could not have new energy introduced into its system all life would have died long ago as heat is a form of energy and the Earth is incapable of producing its own heat.

The only relevancy this has to me in this is based on earth being a balanced eco system. If things are depended on to survive, possibly there waste is even taken into consideration. If they die, things are out of balance. However from the paranormal perspective, I always believed that you cant destroy energy only move it.

You could look at there being no connection unless you realize how everthing is made in a balance. I hate to sound like a balance nut, it's not the way I am at all. I honestly could care less about those things but I'm telling you for sure that each planet is made in an eco system. It has to be, its the only way things will work.
Even if humans could evovle, what are we suppose to eat? Your assuming food will be here for us. If not then your admitting that we evolve to fit whats available, which I have blown this possibility out of the water with how we don't fit here.
If on the other hand you think we evolve in random then how would we have anything to eat? It's not possible and it makes no sense. You might be blind to realizing this because just like we were told in the bible, god provided us with many things, but NONE of them are from heaven. In otherwords the things we are relying on are not intended for us.
Its very technical but basically we are just getting by, like drinking milk from the cow. So which is it did we evolve and our bodies automatically fit with whats available here on earth, or did we adapt and make things work for us, like processed food and such?
Of course we adapted.

As I have said previously, it is obvious that you know nothing about thermodynamics. The sooner you are actually capable of admitting this the sooner you might actually learn something. Creationists have been trying to use thermodynamics to disprove evolution for years now. As a result there are numerous sources that explain why this is false. Of course if you had been doing actual research instead of simply looking for things that support your worldview you would have stumbled upon many of these sources. So, please, stop trying to argue that thermodynamics disproves evolution. It's even more pathetic than some of your other premises.

Well I have to agree that it may not have been the best argument but it sure does leave the question of why evolution is the only thing winding up.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I also have to point out that your making a bold assumption that evolution is not tied in with thermodynamics. The fact is we don't know everything and they could be a combined part of a larger picture. It might be the missing link, no pun intended.

I find it impossible to simply believe there is one or more creators, because someone would still have to make them.
I find it impossible to simply believe we started from slime. Who made the slime?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Tiger5

 

Well the evidence of a creator is zero> What do we have various religious metaphors and a few dodgy non-academic translators of dubious accuracy. Did anyone think that scientists sat around drinking all day. I tell you scientific research in the USA is becoming impossible without out foreign scientists as the creationists are damaging the nation's education in science!

Your kidding me. The fact that DNA is repeated though different species has creator all over it. The way (what little we know anyhow) DNA works has a creator all over it. It's inconceivable to try to understand how all of this could have been made by accident.

There is no way any of this happend by accident much less all of it. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it was planned. And whoever or WHATEVER did this, knew exactly what they were doing.

Here is a little hint. The fact that DNA is repeated through ALL living things shows EVOLUTION and we have the evidence to prove it. It was not an accident. Its cause and effect.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Oh I understand them, but there is no continuity in evolutionism. There is actually 100% continuity with intervention. I think continuity is a key factor when understanding anything, without it you have holes, which in the case of evolutionism you have hypothetical theorys to try to cover those holes, but they don't so then it looks really bad.

Are you writing this from the land of OZ because you certainly have no contact with reality here? This proves my point. You intend to understand nothing Evolution says. You have no understanding of even the world you live in. Shame on you.

Granted I can't present you with an aliens head, much less one of them putting us here, but the fact is we do have clear documentation indicating so. Now we don't have any documentation about our ancestors waking up one day and converting into another species. We don't have bones proving so, and we don't have any real time events that prove evolutionism either. It's just a belief, thats all it ever was. There was never anything to prove it, or back it up other than theorys hanging on theorys.

Here is another ignorant totally braindead reply. You admitt to having no evidence. Where is thee clear documentation??? If you are talking the bible that is neither clear or documentation.


152 Pages and you still talk S##T about our ancestors waking up on day converting into another species. That is what your book says not what evolution shows. BLIND MONKEY AGAIN.

You have to understand that god claimed to love us and demanded that we love him back (and only him as far as gods go because he was a jelious god) as just a control measure. He wanted to make sure he had control over us.

The question was 'who claimed he loved us?' It seems there are more gods about than the one you hang everything on. So which God are you speaking of? Show me how you know your god is the true god and all the other religions are wrong. Try answering a question with some resemblance of foundation.

There is no sarcasim here, evolution does not prove diversity and diversity does not prove evolution.

So you intend not to answer the question. Ok that shows you cannot. BTW I also never got an answer to my application for the hall of fame along with 18 million other people that can show the early atmosphere and how life changed it.

Your assuming our intelligence was designed to compensate for being on a wrong planet and being subject to such.

You need to explain that one because it makes no sense.

Your confusing carbon dating with mtDNA dating. Just because we are over 200,000 years old does not automatically mean we were living it here on earth.

You really are deluded.

Neither its common sense. Just like assuming we were suppose to drink cows mucous. Granted we need that calcium, so we need the cow but do you really think we were meant to drink from the cow? If so then you must also agree each family was suppose to own there own cow to fill that need. It's just so wrong when you really look at it.

No you are not trying to hide behind this nonsense again are you? Are you that desperate? At no point in any of the 150 pages you have taken part in have you applied common sense. This subject was done to death pages ago and you was shown to be profoundly wrong as usual. It appears you are even clueless when it comes to diet and have chosen to remain so.

Same thing with water and location, and same thing with calcium from other sources like oranges. Were we all suppose to live in florida to have access to oranges for calcium. Or was the evolution bug smart enough to know we would be smart enough to make transportation? Or were we just never suppose to grow out of population past florida?

Here is a list of calcium rich food you may wish to ignore.

spinach broccoli, bok choy, turnips, okra, asparagus, artichoke, carrots, celery, cauliflower, cucumbers and peas. Peas and beans in particular are very rich in calcium, look for navy beans, black turtle beans, and chickpeas. There are also many fruits which are recommended for calcium content, including oranges, apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, pineapples, cherries, cranberries, watermelons, and pomegranates.

Diversity has allready been explained from a creator. As far as cherry picking, I do believe that planets evolve into what they become, but as far as life evolving, well we seem to be coming up a tad short in the proof department.

No NO NOOOO!!!!!! You have not explained diversity in any shape or form. Evolution explains diversity. You say evolution is wrong, a non starter. EXPLAIN DIVERSITY WITHOUT IT. You have been asked to do this from the OP onwards.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Tiger5

 

"Your kidding me. The fact that DNA is repeated though different species has creator all over it. The way (what little we know anyhow) DNA works has a creator all over it. It's inconceivable to try to understand how all of this could have been made by accident.

There is no way any of this happend by accident much less all of it. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it was planned. And whoever or WHATEVER did this, knew exactly what they were doing." From your last post to me.



Well why don't we simply apply your logic to cars. The fact that most care are a mixture of the five building blocks of Steel, plastic, rubber, copper and lead should by your logic indicate that all makes of car have 1 creator. Is this true??

reply to post by itsthetooth
PART 2

It has not done that for me, what I get from it is desperate people trying to make sense of things using unprovalbe theorys.

What? What has that answer got to do with the original question?

AND AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES. Evolution does not tell you how life started. It explains how it progressed and diversified. Will you ever grasp this?????????

If I'm wrong than you should be able to tell me what our nich is here.

There is no 'If your wrong' you have never been close to correct. You have been told many times what our niche is only an drooling idiot would not be able to recall being told it so many times before.

We are a tool user. Our niche expands each time we increase our tech. We are a jack of all trades and a master of none. (our hands play a major part in this BTW, as alien as they may appear)

Thats evolution not the supernatural.

Another senseless reply. What was it supposed to mean?

Well there doesn't have to be a creator, its hard to imagine it so.

What? What!!!!!. Unless life has always been then there has to be a creative force of some sort. This is what you base your stupid theory on.

This is why you attack evolution despite evolution having nothing to say about creation. You really need to explain this one mate.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Back to the missing link crap. You just cannot grasp the very basic things evolution explains can you.

So please put down in words what your explanation is for the divesity we see. I doubt you will even attempt it as you have no clue about what you believe in let alone explain diversity.

Your arrogance and avoidance of the topic makes me realize that you just don't want to even touch the subject.

It's as though you know there is no missing link, and it will never be found, therefore don't even ask about the missing link. It's as though the missing link is something we shouldn't never talk about because its taboo. Of course it is, because its a sensitive subject without a valid excuse. And by the way in case you missed the point earlier about mtDNA, just because we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago DOES NOT necessarily prove anything with evolution. That ancestor could have been just as huamn as you and me. They didn't say it was a neanderthal or a different breed of human, just a common ancestor, as in great great great grandmother, that shared relations with several others.

edit on 31-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

The master of avoidance points the finger at me

You have been shown 'the missing link' is a complete falasy but you have avoided and ignored that everytime you have been shown. Why would I waste my time doing the same thing only to get the exact same response from you????????????????????

reply to post by Quadrivium
So address the OP and explain diversity without it. The title change was not my doing. You not reading the OP was your mistake.

reply to post by Xcalibur254
Itsthespoof has set up his own motto. Deny in Ignorance

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

I also have to point out that your making a bold assumption that evolution is not tied in with thermodynamics. The fact is we don't know everything and they could be a combined part of a larger picture. It might be the missing link, no pun intended.

I find it impossible to simply believe there is one or more creators, because someone would still have to make them.
I find it impossible to simply believe we started from slime. Who made the slime?

My word you are unbelievable. You have explained your ignorance of thermodynamics by inventing a missing link, another missing link.

Your whole premise is set on there being one or more creators even though I have reminded you time and again this thread is about explaining diversity without evolution and has nothing to do with creation.

If you cannot accept we evolved from slime and find it impossible to believe in creator/s then what the hell have you been on about through all these pages of drivel.

reply to post by colin42


Ok colin42,
We will talk about my beliefs on evolution or the lack there of, but first let's get a few basics out of the way.

1) Where did life begin?

By answering this it will show that we have a starting point from where we may begin our wonderful discussion.
I could only wish for a more personal one on one discussion of the matter. I will be working later and this will be kind of touch and go but such is life.

reply to post by Quadrivium
Hi Quadrivium

It does not matter where life began. Only the path it has taken since it began.

Lets just get one thing right before you start, if you decide to contribute. The title of the thread was changed by the mods, not me. I do not want anyone to prove evolution wrong. I want those that say evolution is incorrect to explain the diversity we see around us today without it.

So I actually do not want you to explain why you dont believe in evolution it is clear you dont. That has been done to death in other threads and unfortunately this one as well.

I wait in hope you do not open with. 'We have hands that shows we dont fit and came from another planet abandoned by angry gods.'

reply to post by Xcalibur254

2.) The definition of entropy you are using is wrong. It has nothing to do with order and disorder as they are typically defined. Just because you perceive evolution to be an orderly process does not mean that it is. In fact the thermodynamic concepts of entropy and negentropy are inapplicable to evolution.

And how do you have proof that its not. And I see your point it is a good point too.

So, please for once admit that you are wrong. Admit that you got bad information. Admit that you don't actually have a grasp on the material you are parroting. ATS' motto is "Deny Ignorance" yet here you are trying to fight me on a very clear cut matter of your being wrong. In other words you are embracing ignorance because in your mind it solidifies your worldview. What you are demonstrating to us all is a very clear cut case of cognitive dissonance.

Well I don't know that I actually had wrong information. These laws are pretty hard to see just like gravity. They are there but hard to see. And just because thermodynamics does not apply to life, does not mean that life doesnt have to conforme to the rules.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

As I said, the only place entropy could possibly apply is the universe as a whole. It's possible that the universe is a closed system and thus does not have any new energy coming in. Thus, the universe will eventually experience an entropic death. However, the various systems that compose the universe are not closed systems. As I said before, the Sun is constantly producing new energy from matter that comes into our solar system. This energy is then released by the Sun and is absorbed by every object in the solar system. This means that every object has new energy being introduced into its system. Now, the second law of thermodynamics, which encompasses the concept of entropy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system. In other words, if a system is closed it cannot have new energy introduced, nor can it have energy removed. If the Earth could not have new energy introduced into its system all life would have died long ago as heat is a form of energy and the Earth is incapable of producing its own heat.

Well when you say things like its possible, I realize that there is some assuming here. Granted it is odd they were able to apply this to evolution, but at the same time everything here is privy to the rule.

reply to post by colin42


Colin,
I promise that I will not try and prove to you that evolution is wrong. It would be like me asking you to prove there is no God.
Also I never said that I did not believe in evolution. I do not to the full extent of some in this thread.
For example, I do not believe that a fish could become a zebra, no matter the amount of time given.
I do believe that life on earth was given the ability to adapt to our surroundings and most of these adaptations can take place in just a few generations.
We were given the ability to survive.
I asked where life began to act as a starting point for our dialogue. I meant here on earth, not some far away place with green aliens.
So back to my previous question......... Where did life begin?

Would I be correct to assume that you believe, as I do, that it started in some type of H2O? Whether it be an ocean, a pond or a puddle?