Instead of looking at dogs, let's look at tetrapods. These include amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. All are still recognizably tetrapods, just as all dogs are recognizably dogs. Creationists and evolutionists have the same belief about organisms belonging to the group they descended from; the difference is that creationists use a model where there were many different original types of life, and evolutionists use a model where there was one (or a few maybe) single celled original types of life.
Do we see bulldogs turning into chihuahuas? No. Two bulldog parents make bulldog puppies. Analogously, you won't see rhinos turning into frogs. Two rhinos make baby rhinos.
Creationists are consistently either ignorant or deceitful about this point.
Originally posted by KellyJay I can mix chocolate in my milk and get chocolate milk too, I can light
a match and also get reactions, what I don't get with either of those
is something that goes beyond the natural outflow of those reactions.
I don't get brains, bones, skin, fins, gills, leaves, bark, hair, or fur
along with other assorted odds and ends.
Kelly
Okay then, the stratified deposit of sediments in rivers flowing from the mountains to the sea. Larger rocks are deposited earlier in the stream, silt remains in the water until the flow is much slower. Then you can overlay the organisms that live in each of those environments. Functional and complex, and not a creator in sight.
Originally posted by KellyJay You start with dogs you end with dogs, you
start with bacteria you end with bacteria, there is only the belief that
suggests more is taking place, that more has taken place.
Unfortunately, you also start with religion and get idiots, unwilling to believe the evidence of their own eyes because it'd mean they aren't special.
Originally posted by KellyJay Reactions pure and simple, chemical and otherwise will run their course
if it is just water flowing down a hill mixing with dirt creating mud. That
too is just the same thing, it is what it is when you mix the two;
however, that mud, and whatever other material doing something
quite unique such as forming into life, getting a genetic code that starts
t ...[text shortened]... mething more is a
belief, which goes against what we see and know today, it is a belief!
Kelly
yada yada yada yada
I proved that parts of the universe are able to increase their functional complexity, the very tennant of your flawed argument. Your entire house of cards has just crashed down around your ears, but you still won't believe your eyes. Stopper your ears up Kelly, the truth is getting in the way of your beliefs.
Originally posted by KellyJay Yes I have heard of strawman fallacy, you have a point?
My point is that things are what they are, and we have never seen
anything ever turn into something else.
and I've never seen a tree grow. I looked at one for a whole hour and it didn't grow one bit. Therefore, because I didn't see it happen it can't happen - you have small trees and big trees, but one doesn't become the other.
And don't try fobbing me off with any "it happens very slowly" rubbish either!
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Instead of looking at dogs, let's look at tetrapods. These include amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. All are still recognizably tetrapods, just as all dogs are recognizably dogs. Creationists and evolutionists have the same belief about organisms belonging to the group they descended from; the difference is that creationists use a model ...[text shortened]... e baby rhinos.
Creationists are consistently either ignorant or deceitful about this point.
I've pointed out to Kelly many, many times that he'd have to be observing for thousands of years to see the entire scenario, although we can see some parts much quicker. For example, speciation is currently being shown, and was reported last year in the journal "science". Kelly refuses to adress the point though.
Originally posted by frogstomp "The second law of thermodynamics, which requires average entropy (or disorder) to increase, does not in any way forbid local order from arising through various mechanisms of self-organization, which can turn accidents into frozen ones producing extensive regularities. Again, such mechanisms are not restricted to complex adaptive systems.
Different entiti ...[text shortened]... . " ...
Murray Gell-Mann summarizing material from his book ' The Quark And The Jaguar'
True -- localised order with an increase in total entropy for the bigger system is certainly an option.
Originally posted by Churlant I'm afraid you maintain an inaccurate conceptualization of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, many here seem to either misunderstand or mischaracterize the physics involved, or are simply ignorant on the point.
I know I am not the first to make this comment, nor am I likely to be the last. Whenever someone indicates there has been an incorrect re ...[text shortened]... dynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems."[/i]
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Instead of looking at dogs, let's look at tetrapods. These include amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. All are still recognizably tetrapods, just as all dogs are recognizably dogs. Creationists and evolutionists have the same belief about organisms belonging to the group they descended from; the difference is that creationists use a model ...[text shortened]... e baby rhinos.
Creationists are consistently either ignorant or deceitful about this point.
I think this page sums up the differences you mentioned:
Originally posted by Halitose True -- localised order with an increase in total entropy for the bigger system is certainly an option.
Actually, there is another way of looking at the 2nd law: Gravitation will eventually pull everything back into a black hole , creating a condition where the black hole becomes a white hole. BANG .
The problem with this seems to be that nobody know exactly what goes on inside a black hole, but that lets me speculate, like Heisenberg did, that a white hole could be the case.
BTW I've never considered measuring red-shift as giving an accurate portrayal of the distances of stars, since what we measure is light emitted long ago and given the amount of time it takes to get here gives the other stars a long time to continue their movements.In short our universe possibly isn't inflating.
Originally posted by Halitose In the past few hundred years dog breeding has led to a great variation -- from the Great Dane to the French Poodle. That is not a problem. Those breeds are still inherently dog -- they have all the intrinsic characteristics that distinguish them from cats or bats, for example. They all have the same basic skeletal structure, etc, etc.
Actually I am claiming that the differences between the skeletal structure of two breeds of dogs can be and often is as different from each other as say wolves are from coyotes. yet it is repeatedly claimed that it would be imposible to get wolves from coyotes by selective breading.(one species to another).
Actually, it’s you who’s false. Have you ever heard of the scientific principle of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics, perhaps? Kelly's position is well supported scientifically -- it's you who needs to disprove it or give special conditions where it would not apply. I do know what the second law of thermodynamics is and it applies only to a closed system which does not exist anywhere in the universe except the universe as a whole (unless you believe in God). Kellys position is that 'everything gets simpler and runs down'. That is not what the second law states at all and I am not aware of him even trying to use the second law to back his claim but rather his own flawed observation. If it was true as I have repeatedly said, we would all be living in a sea of mud.
Originally posted by scottishinnz yada yada yada yada
I proved that parts of the universe are able to increase their functional complexity, the very tennant of your flawed argument. Your entire house of cards has just crashed down around your ears, but you still won't believe your eyes. Stopper your ears up Kelly, the truth is getting in the way of your beliefs.
No you showed me a reaction in prograss, one that will with time
stop. This isn't along the same lines as life where it is has been
suggested that the DNA code of a simpler life form like possibly
a single cell life form mutates into a multi-cell creature with limbs
and systems that had never before been in the universe,
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay No you showed me a reaction in prograss, one that will with time
stop. This isn't along the same lines as life where it is has been
suggested that the DNA code of a simpler life form like possibly
a single cell life form mutates into a multi-cell creature with limbs
and systems that had never before been in the universe,
Kelly
No, that wasn't the argument you presented. Your argument was that functional complexity could not increase due to natural processes. You were wrong.
Originally posted by scottishinnz No, that wasn't the argument you presented. Your argument was that functional complexity could not increase due to natural processes. You were wrong.
I think you should present that out of what I have said, and I would
prefer you not as some have done, take one small bit of what I said
out of context and run with it.
Kelly
Functionally complex
05 Jun '06 21:03
Back to Top