Educate your YEC 3: The second law of thermodynamics doesn't contradict evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just adding energy to the jar by shaking it does not cause any increase in order or make it living even though it may be moving, but it eventually returns to its original state.

However, living systems must have design order to be able to use energy to function. As this designed order deteriorates, function decreases until it dies and returns to its orignal non-living state.

Depending on how precise you want to be about to the statement "returns to its original state" the first paragraph is trivially true. The first sentence of the second paragraph is monstrous.

However, living systems must have design[ed] order to be able to use energy to function

This just has no basis in science. Living things are highly ordered and living things use energy, largely to maintain that order and reproduce themselves. This does not mean that the order is designed. They have a genome, but there is no reason to believe that it was designed by a conscious entity.

Originally posted by RJHinds

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spo ...[text shortened]... f life."

(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Please tell us which scientific paper he published with this content? If he didn't, why didn't he?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please tell us which scientific paper he published with this content? If he didn't, why didn't he?

As I have mentioned before no mainline scientific journal will accept any paper that criticizes evolution. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I have mentioned before no mainline scientific journal will accept any paper that criticizes evolution. 😏

You know it's funny you should say that. They also won't publish my paper on how ancient dinosaurs built spaceships and left earth just before that asteroid hit, and how they went to the planet gargigula where they got eaten by giant monsters, and that's why we've only found a few dinosaur fossils, when there should be hundreds of thousands.

I guess they just won't publish unsubstantiated bullshyte. 🙁

Originally posted by RJHinds
As I have mentioned before no mainline scientific journal will accept any paper that criticizes evolution. 😏

Which tells us beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of scientists who also have PhDs, and many of whom are physicists and actually know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, think the person you quoted is wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which tells us beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of scientists who also have PhDs, and many of whom are physicists and actually know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, think the person you quoted is wrong.

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible by Duane Gish. Acts & Facts. 36 (1), 2007. More Creationist Research Part I: Geological Research Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(4):161, March 1989. More Creationist Research Part II: Biological Research Creation Research Society Quarterly 26(1):5, June 1989.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible by Duane Gish. Acts & Facts. 36 (1), 2007. More Creationist Research Part I: Geological Research Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(4):161, March 1989. More Creationist Research Part II: Biological Research Creation Research Society Quarterly 26(1):5, June 1989.

March 1989. Lets see, 99,09, 2019, in a few years that will be 30 years behind. Funny they don't pub anything a bit newer, like in the actual TWENTY FIRST century. Why don't you bring up the Piltdown man like you have at least three times before? Maybe we will be convinced evolution is impossible based on THAT fraud.

Originally posted by RJHinds
A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible by Duane Gish. Acts & Facts. 36 (1), 2007. More Creationist Research Part I: Geological Research Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(4):161, March 1989. More Creationist Research Part II: Biological Research Creation Research Society Quarterly 26(1):5, June 1989.

Just a point, I know it's been made over and over again, but you keep making this category error. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the origin of species. It does not seek to explain the origin of life. There is no particular contradiction between the theory of evolution and God creating life on Earth provided it was 3.8 billion years ago. The theory that seeks to explain how life emerged from non-living precursors is called abiogenesis.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Just a point, I know it's been made over and over again, but you keep making this category error. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the origin of species. It does not seek to explain the origin of life. There is no particular contradiction between the theory of evolution and God creating life on Earth provided it was 3.8 billion years ago. The theory that seeks to explain how life emerged from non-living precursors is called abiogenesis.

You make the error of believing that abiogenesis is a new credibled theory, but it is nothing but a rework and restatement of spontaneous generation, which has been discredited as false over a hundred years ago. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You make the error of believing that abiogenesis is a new credibled theory...

He does use the word theory, doesn't he? 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
He does use the word theory, doesn't he? 😕

Abiogenesis = spontaneous generation, that is what matters.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Abiogenesis = spontaneous generation, that is what matters.

No, spontaneous generation came about by a scientist back in the 1600's or so who put a bag of grain in a bin and then a few weeks later opened the bin and found mice jumping out. THAT is the basis for spontaneous generation. Something to that effect.

It was just as bogus as the guy who tried to train spiders to jump and when it didn't, pulled off a leg. Then tried to make it jump again, no luck and pulled off another leg. He hid this till there were no legs and wrote up the conclusions: Pulling off legs renders the spiders deaf.....

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, spontaneous generation came about by a scientist back in the 1600's or so who put a bag of grain in a bin and then a few weeks later opened the bin and found mice jumping out. THAT is the basis for spontaneous generation. Something to that effect.

It was just as bogus as the guy who tried to train spiders to jump and when it didn't, pulled off a leg ...[text shortened]... there were no legs and wrote up the conclusions: Pulling off legs renders the spiders deaf.....

Was it peer reviewed?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Was it peer reviewed?

It was recorded back in the day, a few hundred years ago. They didn't exactly have peer reviewed publications back then.

Well, it goes back all the way to Aristotle it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

And was refuted by none other than Louis Pasteur.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It was recorded back in the day, a few hundred years ago. They didn't exactly have peer reviewed publications back then.

Well, it goes back all the way to Aristotle it seems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

And was refuted by none other than Louis Pasteur.

Well abiogenesis is the same thing with lip stick applied. 😏