19 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAn increase in entropy cannot be equated to "things breaking down". It cannot even be equated to an increase in disorder per se. For example, the formation of snowflakes (a highly ordered structure) from water does increase entropy. In any case, none of this is particularly relevant in the case of the Earth, which is not a closed system, so the added entropy can (and does) go back into space.
The point is that systems eventually break down. You don't expect to be still living and working in a billion years do you? Also have you ever asked yourself who put our solar system in the order it is so that the diferent systems we see last as long as they do? Why are there certain laws that govern the operation of our solar syatem?
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
11 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI had already tediously and in considerable length explained to him how he was preforming the logical error of the fallacy of equivocation by confusing two meanings of the word “disorder” by confusing the “disorder” in physics which is thermodynamic disorder with the rather vague and more generic English dictionary meaning of the word “disorder”.
An increase in entropy cannot be equated to "things breaking down". It cannot even be equated to an increase in disorder per se. For example, the formation of snowflakes (a highly ordered structure) from water does increase entropy. In any case, none of this is particularly relevant in the case of the Earth, which is not a closed system, so the added entropy can (and does) go back into space.
But he then just gave me a short post where he just simply repeats the same silly logical error. I can think of three possibilities; either he is too stupid to understand what we are saying to him or he doesn't bother to actually read the whole of our posts or he is pretending to not understand and is just messing with us and I don't know which. What can we do other than just keep repeating ourselves with logic?
You have rightly pointed out yet another flaw in his logic; the Earth is NOT a closed system which means thermodynamic disorder CAN and often does decrease on Earth. That means, of course, the same would apply to anything on Earth and that would include all life. This means that, even if you confuse the two meanings of the word "disorder", you should still deduce that the law of entropy does NOT imply an increase in the "disorder" of life (whatever the hell "disorder of life" could mean in physics!).
There is just so much wrong with his logic you could write a whole book about it!
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadLOL Well, I see you've found a patch for that hole as well. Keep up the good work.
Of course neither of us is under any obligation. But I choose to make the assumption that an anonymous person on the internet who does not want to substantiate his claims is less likely to be correct than the body of scientific data that I am familiar with. I see no point in further research on my part. I think he is wrong, and I think he knows he is wrong - hence his behaviour.
I did give you permission to call me a creationist, so you can do whatever you want with that. But now I'm wondering if Dean Kenyon really is a creationist, or is only a creationist because that's what you say he is. It's amazing how much power evolutionists have to define what is being said and who is saying it.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo you give permission to be called a creationist. Does that extend to a young Earth as well or are you happy with the idea SOMETHING or SOMEBODY created the universe with life in mind and let the dates roll where they will, right now, closing in on 14 billion years for the universe and a 4 1/2 billion years old for good old Earth?
[b]LOL Well, I see you've found a patch for that hole as well. Keep up the good work.
I did give you permission to call me a creationist, so you can do whatever you want with that. But now I'm wondering if Dean Kenyon really is a creationist, or is only a creationist because that's what you say he is. It's amazing how much power evolutionists have to define what is being said and who is saying it.[/b]
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhether you choose to believe my explanation for a reason things break down is not important to the fact that things do break down. We know that it is true that things do break down, so if you don't like the reason I give, then find your own.
An increase in entropy cannot be equated to "things breaking down". It cannot even be equated to an increase in disorder per se. For example, the formation of snowflakes (a highly ordered structure) from water does increase entropy. In any case, none of this is particularly relevant in the case of the Earth, which is not a closed system, so the added entropy can (and does) go back into space.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI didn't tell twhitehead I was a creationist, he said I was a creationist. So I said if you want me to be a creationist then fine. You may call me a creationist. He obviously can't understand anything I'm saying unless he can identify what I am, so I decided to make it easier for him.
So you give permission to be called a creationist. Does that extend to a young Earth as well or are you happy with the idea SOMETHING or SOMEBODY created the universe with life in mind and let the dates roll where they will, right now, closing in on 14 billion years for the universe and a 4 1/2 billion years old for good old Earth?
In my first post here I used the words "evolution" and "problematic" in the same message. Based on that (and a few statements following that) he decided I was a creationist and brought out his army of straw men.
Recently he took his army of straw men over to the Galaxy thread to claim I was talking about a point in space when I was actually talking about a point in time. It didn't take him long to find out what I was saying, but I'm still waiting for humy to stop playing the evolutionist vs creationist game and allow me to proceed in my line of reasoning... a line of reasoning doesn't begin and end after one (or two) points.
I may be new to this site, but this isn't my first trip to OZ. I saw the man behind the curtain a long time ago.
19 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Whether you choose to believe my explanation for a reason things break down is not important to the fact that things do break down. We know that it is true that things do break down, so if you don't like the reason I give, then find your own.
The Instructor
Whether you CHOOSE to believe my explanation for a reason things break down is (my emphasis)
“CHOOSE” to believe? What? You mean it is not a matter of logic but a matter of personal choice of believing your 'explanation' even though we have repeatedly and completely debunked/disproved you 'explanation' with reason/logic?
Oh please.
I have shown at least one logical flaw in your 'explanation' (fallacy of equivocation) and he has pointed out another (Law of entropy only applies to a closed system and Earth, which includes life on Earth, is not a closed system). So are you just going to just pretend we didn't just do this?
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI see. Well, I think you should eat a pack of thumbtacks. This will help you ascend to heaven. If you don't like the reason I give, then find your own.
Whether you choose to believe my explanation for a reason things break down is not important to the fact that things do break down. We know that it is true that things do break down, so if you don't like the reason I give, then find your own.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI just don't agree with your logic, that's all. We can agree to disagree.Whether you CHOOSE to believe my explanation for a reason things break down is (my emphasis)
“CHOOSE” to believe? What? You mean it is not a matter of logic but a matter of personal choice of believing your 'explanation' even though we have repeatedly and completely debunked/disproved you 'explanation' with reason/logic?
Oh please.
I ha ...[text shortened]... h, is not a closed system). So are you just going to just pretend we didn't just do this?
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeI merely pointed out that Wikipedia says he is a creationist. It also says he has defended 'creation science' in several court cases.
I did give you permission to call me a creationist, so you can do whatever you want with that. But now I'm wondering if Dean Kenyon really is a creationist, or is only a creationist because that's what you say he is. It's amazing how much power evolutionists have to define what is being said and who is saying it.
Why would you doubt that he is a creationist? I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that he is not if either he himself says so, or you present compelling evidence that Wikipedia is wrong on this point. I do not take Wikipedia to be gospel truth.
But I suspect that Wikipedia is correct on this point and that Dean Kenyon himself would readily describe himself as a creationist, and you are as per your habit, just trying to avoid actually addressing the points I have made.
The challenge still stands: present one good reason why you doubt the validity of the theory of evolution, and we can discuss it.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't doubt he is a creationist. I doubt he became a creationist in 1976, but I'll have to research that before I can say it's true or not. If I'm not mistaken, you told me wiki said he became a creationist in 1976. I think wiki may be fudging the timeline a bit, but until I know for sure I can't say if it's true or not.
I merely pointed out that Wikipedia says he is a creationist. It also says he has defended 'creation science' in several court cases.
Why would you doubt that he is a creationist? I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that he is not if either he himself says so, or you present compelling evidence that Wikipedia is wrong on this point. I do not take Wiki ...[text shortened]... one good reason why you doubt the validity of the theory of evolution, and we can discuss it.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.creationmoments.com/content/25-reasons-doubt-theory-evolution
I merely pointed out that Wikipedia says he is a creationist. It also says he has defended 'creation science' in several court cases.
Why would you doubt that he is a creationist? I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that he is not if either he himself says so, or you present compelling evidence that Wikipedia is wrong on this point. I do not take Wiki ...[text shortened]... one good reason why you doubt the validity of the theory of evolution, and we can discuss it.
Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t001981.html#sthash.Hy8lJtJW.dpuf
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich of the 25 reasons would you say is the most convincing?
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/25-reasons-doubt-theory-evolution
Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t001981.html#sthash.Hy8lJtJW.dpuf
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've given you more than one good reason over the past two or three weeks. I'm tired of watching you mangle my words and ignoring me when I come back to say "I didn't say that".
I merely pointed out that Wikipedia says he is a creationist. It also says he has defended 'creation science' in several court cases.
Why would you doubt that he is a creationist? I am perfectly willing to be persuaded that he is not if either he himself says so, or you present compelling evidence that Wikipedia is wrong on this point. I do not take Wiki ...[text shortened]... one good reason why you doubt the validity of the theory of evolution, and we can discuss it.
IMO the "validity" of evolution is based on assumptions backed by half baked theories, a self serving interpretation of evidence, and circular reasoning (We evolved, therefore we are here. We are here, therefore we evolved). And now I'm supposed to believe a mutational biotic soup containing dominant and recessive properties can replace the defunct chemical evolution through primordial soup idea. In other words, we don't need a primordial soup to get started, because that soup is already inside of us. No abiogenesis needed, just add water and stir.
19 Jun 13
Dean Kenyon did not become a creationist in 1976. That was the year a student asked him a question he could not answer.
http://thephilosophiserchannel.blogspot.com/2010/04/proof-that-evolution-fails-dean-kenyon.html
Dean Kenyon was not an evolutionist one day and a creationist the next day just because a student asked him a question he couldn't answer.
So what does Mr. Picky Wiki have to say about this?