14 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerHere's a rough answer for the question in the Lewis quote - how can we trust our logic if it's the result of random motions of matter?
CS Lewis said,
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our presen ...[text shortened]... that have been set out by men whose thoughts are mere accidents?
In the early universe, sub atomic particles moved randomly. However, there were forces at work in the early universe which were identical to the forces at work today. The subatomic particles fell into local minimums of potential energy called atoms. Likewise, atoms fell into local minimums of potential energy in the forms of various molecules, including those molecules postulated to have formed in the "primeveil soup" (sp?) of the early Earth. Miller's famous experiment (and those of others since) shows how the early molecules of life could have come into being.
The "RNA world" hypothesis describes how some of these molecules could have begun to replicate themselves based purely on simple chemical and physical laws. Once this began to take place, mutation of the RNA strands combined with natural selection would cause evolution to take place.
As I've already described elsewhere (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20290) it makes sense that simple cells could come into being once RNA began to evolve.
Now evolution would continue to modify and refine the organism to be effective at surviving and reproducing in various environments.
The basic problem with Lewis' perspective is that it does not take into account how seemingly random motions of matter under the influence of the natural forces of the universe can create localized order and an evolutionary process. I've already shown how such random motions under the influence of these forces can bring separate subatomic particles and order them into a cell which takes in matter and energy from the environment and reproduces itself while continuing the evolutionary process that brought it into being.
Now, the earliest cells would probably absorb various molecules randomly. At some point, the codes for various membrane enzymes would evolve, and cells with such genomes would reproduce better. Thus, from a cell which has no control over what kinds of molecules it absorbs or excretes (assuming the internal molecules don't chemically bind the absorbed molecules), a cell which selectively absorbs certain molecules much more easily than others has come into being simply because once this randomly occurs once the cell will outcompete other cells for raw materials/nutrients and out reproduce them. Random motion of matter under the influence of the natural forces has created a cell which is more effective at getting the nutrients it needs to reproduce.
Similarly, once the cell has evolved to an animal (the specifics of which are not relevant to the topic), natural selection will favor animals which behave in ways that promote survival and reproduction. Such behavior will get more and more complex and effective as evolution proceeds. Eventually an ape came into being which was a direct ancestor of chimpanzees and modern humans. It had complex behavior which encouraged it's survival and reproduction. Drives like pain, rage, lust, hunger and fear, generated by the brain, worked wonders in helping the ape survive and reproduce. Pain, through evolution, was correlated with those things that kept the ape from surviving and reproducing. Therefore, if the ape were able to comprehend the concept, it made sense that the ape could "trust" pain as an indicator of things to avoid.
In addition, mutations had and would continue to generate, among other traits, the ability to problem solve. Natural selection selected for this trait and it got more and more complex as the ape became more and more human like.
Logic came from these roots. Even though it's the product of random motion, it can be relied upon to enhance survival which allows us to reproduce. What it does is allow us to understand the world around us effectively.
Illogical people continue to be selected against to some extent. For example, most people would agree with the premise "I don't want to get hurt or get killed." Now if someone were totally incapable of the logic which tells most of us that if we step in front of a speeding bus we might get hurt or killed, this person's genes would likely get selected out of existence over a long period of time.
This is why I feel I can trust logic. It's the result of a process in which those organisms/molecules that survive and reproduce pass on those traits which enabled them to do so. Logic is one of those traits, and as I value survival, I trust it.
Now I know some logical discussions don't seem to be very useful from the survival perspective, but logic is the process. What premises are used is a separate thing independent of the logic that gets applied to those premises.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompWe do not know how salty the sea was before the flood. The flood was initiated by the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11). Whatever the "fountains of the great deep" were (see Noah's Flood - What did all the water come from?), the flood must have been associated with massive earth movements, because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity.
Your assumption . that only air breathing animals would have needed to be saved dont make it either,, fresh water fishes cannot survive in saltwater nor can plants or termites the number of termite pairs ...[text shortened]... ists" study science .... The University of Mumbo -Jumbo ?
Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates hot water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water. Furthermore, erosion accompanying the movement of water off the continents after the flood would have added salt to the oceans. In other words, we would expect the pre-flood ocean waters to be less salty than they were after the flood.
The problem for fish coping with saltiness is this: fish in fresh water tend to absorb water, because the saltiness of their body fluids draws in water (by osmosis). Fish in saltwater tend to lose water from their bodies because the surrounding water is saltier than their body fluids.
Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater.
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by MaustrauserThere are many possibilities of how these diseases could have survived, but I'll only name a few if you want the rest, check:
I quite agree with the statement that Noah's problems would have really begun. Because these eight people would have had to have carried inside them:
- Ringworm (all species)
- Diptheria
- Small pox
- Herpes (all types)
- Syphilis
- Gonhorrhea
- Shingles
- Hepatitis A, B & C
- Influenza
- Whooping Cough
- Scarlet Fever
- Measles
- Chicke ...[text shortened]... mals.
dj2becker - Noah's ark is a FAIRY TALE. Full stop - believed by little kiddies...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/diseases.asp
(i)Survival in insect vectors
Today, we know that some disease organisms (for example, the malarial parasite) are carried in, for example, mosquitoes. This raises other questions. Were flying insects part of the ‘creeping things’ which were all sent on board the Ark, or did they have their own ‘arks’ outside, such as huge rafts of matted, floating vegetation? Could the viruses survive within biting insect populations for long enough considering these insects’ life-spans? It should be remembered that not all humans would have perished in the first few weeks of the Flood. Many may have survived for some time, at first on high ground, then on makeshift rafts.
(ii)Survival in human corpses
This could apply especially to those dying in the late stages of the Flood, becoming bloated and floating to shore later. This seems conceivable for some moulds and bacteria—even some viruses have been known to last for decades.7 Of course, organisms then have to have an opportunity to again infect a living person.
(iii)Survival in the dried state
Though some viruses die readily when dry, others survive long periods in the dried state. For example, rabies virus in bat droppings can dry out to become airborne dust, which has infected cave explorers. How does anything stay dry in a worldwide Flood? Some of the floating clumps mentioned earlier may have had dry interior portions—also, some parts of the Ark itself would have provided a dry enough environment.
(iv)Survival through freezing in polar regions
The whole matter of apparent catastrophic snap-freezing of some mammoths in the Arctic circle is controversial as regards whether it was associated with the Flood or a post-Flood event, but it brings to mind the fact that many disease organisms survive well when frozen. In general, the Flood event was probably a warm one, but insufficient modelling has been done to establish what conditions could have been possible at the poles.
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2becker
There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c037.html[/b]
Quite right. Some fish can migrate between salty and fresh water. And some organisms can cope with changes in salinity. BUT the vast majority cannot. Unless of course they evolved...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by MaustrauserWell I hope you understand what you mean with the word "evolve". I hope you undestand that "adaptation" in the form of "micoevolution" does not mean changing from one specie to another. I hope you realise that "adaptation" is zero evidence for macroevolution.
Quite right. Some fish can migrate between salty and fresh water. And some organisms can cope with changes in salinity. BUT the vast majority cannot. Unless of course they evolved...
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerOh indeed I do my friend. Once again you are bringing out the creationist furphy that allows adaption and microevolution.
Well I hope you understand what you mean with the word "evolve". I hope you undestand that "adaptation" in the form of "micoevolution" does not mean changing from one specie to another.
Now lets say a fish has a tiny little adaption to its environment...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...I suggest that this fish won't be able to mate with the very first fish...And whoa we have a new species and evolution!!!
And don't forget, we aren't talking about 6000 years here. We are talking millions of years. This is plenty of time time for these microadaptations (good word that - thank you Creation Science Foundation) to turn into evolution.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompMany terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water. Indeed, salt water impedes the germination of some species so that the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.
Your assumption . that only air breathing animals would have needed to be saved dont make it either,, fresh water fishes cannot survive in saltwater nor can plants or termites the number of termite pairs alone needing to be saved would have been more than sufficient eat enough of the hull to sink it.
even s ...[text shortened]... where did your " scientists" study science .... The University of Mumbo -Jumbo ?
Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are still capable of asexual sprouting.
Many plants could have survived as planned food stores on the ark, or accidental inclusions in such food stores (Genesis 6:21).
Many seeds have devices for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.
The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove (Genesis 8:11) shows that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the ark.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c019.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by MaustrauserThis is gobbledygook.
Oh indeed I do my friend. Once again you are bringing out the creationist furphy that allows adaption and microevolution.
Now lets say a fish has a tiny little adaption to its environment...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ...and then another tiny little adaption...and then another tiny little adaption ... ...[text shortened]... icroadaptations (good word that - thank you Creation Science Foundation) to turn into evolution.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
I'll go into more detail about these points. Maybe I'll open a new thread...
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerOh you have made my evening. Fancing you asking me to read an Answers in Genesis website and then to add insult to injury to read Carl Wieland's scribbles.
There are many possibilities of how these diseases could have survived, but I'll only name a few if you want the rest, check:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/diseases.asp
(i)Survival in insect vectors
(ii)Survival in human corpses
(iii)Survival in the dried state
(iv)Survival through freezing in polar regions
At least Carl admits that he doesn't have all the answers to the "Disease Ridden Ark Debacle" in his article, but suggests a few answers. And I admit, some of them are plausible but he FAILS to adequately explain all of these diseases away. Fancy coming up with the notion of 'un-evolving' which he calls devolving. Surely this is just further evolution! Wieland has to twist his logic to such a degree its a wonder he doesn't end up his own fundament! You would have thought that Dr Carl Wieland (a medical doctor and not a PhD) would know a little more about disease wouldn't you?
You suggest that malaria could just sit around in mosquitos and not go into humans at all. Sorry - the Malaria parasite NEEDs humans to survive. We are part of its reproductive cycle.
Oh, in my earlier post I left of these other human only diseases:
- Typhoid
- Cholera
- Yellow Fever
- Typhus and
- Leprosy.
You would have thought that Dr Carl Wieland (a medical doctor and not a PhD) would know a little more about disease wouldn't you?
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's a grand assertion. What is gobbledygook?
This is gobbledygook.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
I'll go into more detail about these points. Maybe I'll open a new thread...
You are incapable of understanding that many changes within a species can lead to it eventually not being able to mate with the original organism and thus a new species is created? Basic biology mate!
1. Evolution has not been observed.
We haven't been looking for it for very long...just over one hundred years. Evolution takes millions of years. Do you expect to see it happening in your fridge? Come to think of it, it probably is happening there. You just don't see it!
Could you please tell me where AIDS has come from? Or was it amongst Noah's crew too?
2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Please explain how it violates this law? Don't forget that evolution is dealing with live organisms - not bits of rock or machinery.
3. There are no transitional fossils.
Utter CRAP. Creationists just redefine every transitional fossil as it is discovered as non-transitional. Eg. A evolves into C. Creationists howl that this could not have happened as there is no transitional fossil B. Once B is found, Creationists go quiet and then scream that there is no transitional fossil between A and B. The Homo sequence is now almost perfectly mapped with many transitional fossils. Foreheads retracting. Brain cases getting bigger. They are all there. But not to the blind Answers-in-Genesis idiots.
4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
I don't necessarily agree - but so what?
5. Evolution is only a theory - it hasn't been proved.
Quite right. But its the best theory in existence for what we observe in nature.
14 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerEvolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
This is gobbledygook.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chan ...[text shortened]... o more detail about these points. Maybe I'll open a new thread...
This is totally and completely bogus. This claims shows such an incredible ignorance of that Law that it's amazing.
The 2nd Law governs closed systems. Organisms are not closed systems. All of life is not a closed system. Net entropy increases due to the existence of life primarily in the conversion of light to heat. Some organisms break down chemicals for their energy instead, and this chemical breakdown increases entropy.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by MaustrauserThat was only one of the possibilities that I gave you there are many more I gave you the link before but seeing you didn't read it I'll give you the whole lot:
Oh you have made my evening. Fancing you asking me to read an Answers in Genesis website and then to add insult to injury to read Carl Wieland's scribbles.
At least Carl admits that he doesn't have all the answers to the "Disease Ridden Ark Debacle" in his article, but suggests a few answers. And I admit, some of them are plausible but he FAILS ...[text shortened]... l Wieland (a medical doctor and not a PhD) would know a little more about disease wouldn't you?
1) Specialization of the Pathogen
By this means, some disease-causing organisms may have been much less particular about their chosen host, and could thus have come through the Flood in some of the tens of thousands of animal species carried on board the Ark (just as today, tuberculosis carried in cattle can infect human beings), only later ‘devolving’ (specializing) into their present ‘human-only’ status. (See also the Appendix.) Alternatively, some which now only survive inside a human body may have been robust enough to survive outside of any host.
There are many disease-causing organisms today (for example, those causing tetanus and anthrax) which can form very hardy, durable spores, enabling them to survive a range of conditions outside the body. Many parasites of man such as tapeworms have intermediate host stages in various animals such as pigs and cattle, which could have carried the disease through the Flood. Those which do not now may have simply become too specialized, and may formerly have been capable of infecting an intermediate host. Also, the apparent dependence of some tapeworms on humans for the adult, egg-producing stage could be another case of specialization, as similar tapeworm species can use other hosts to complete their life-cycle.
(2) Mutational ‘Horizontal Evolution’
This is likely to be relevant for viruses in particular. Random changes (for example, mutations) have never been shown to generate significant amounts of new teleonomic (functional, project-oriented) information. Thus they do not create a new organism, or cause any true (uphill) ‘evolution’. However, it only takes an informationally insignificant accidental change in the protein coat of a virus to vary the way it is recognized by an immune system and cause a major shift in infectivity.3 Thus, a harmless green monkey virus may begin causing serious illness in humans.
A virus is nothing much more than a protein coat and a single packet of information (RNA or DNA). It has no complex cellular machinery, and should not really be called ‘alive’. It hijacks the machinery of an existing cell. In computer language, it is really analogous to a piece of ‘software’ which modifies the software of a living cell so that the ‘hardware’ of that cell can make copies of the virus ‘software’. It is a program for making copies of itself using machinery it does not possess. Since in evolutionary theory, fully fledged cells had to exist before viruses, the latter are not some evolutionary intermediate between life and non-life. Mutational shifts in viruses are not on the way up to a ‘higher’ form of life—a virus has never been observed to give rise to anything other than a virus. No informed evolutionist should use mutational change in viruses as a defence of molecules-to-man evolution.
Common viral diseases of today may well have ‘evolved’ from animal diseases. Thus, far from Noah’s family having measles, this affliction probably did not exist at the time. A recent New Scientist report states that:
‘Just as historians such as William McNeill, of the University of Chicago, and other researchers trace smallpox back to cowpox, so measles probably evolved from rinderpest or canine distemper, and influenza from hog diseases.’4
(3) Carriage by a Symptomless Host
Natural immunity in a particular host organism can mean that a disease organism can be carried without the host suffering any ill effects. Of course, this could only apply to a few diseases at most in such a small human population, but certainly adds one more option for survival of diseases. Virologists have speculated that the HIV-AIDS virus may have existed in a small, naturally resistant population for many years before clinical AIDS ever occurred.5 It also seems that monkeys can be born carrying four viruses in their brain without ill effect.6
A number of viruses are known to set up symptomless carrier states. For example, the chicken pox/shingles virus (herpes zoster) is generally carried to the grave after infection.
Furthermore, the declining lifespans of humans after the Flood may indicate an overall degeneration, such that Noah’s family may have had a lot more host immunity to diseases which now cannot be asymptomatically carried.
Some disease organisms today can be carried in one part of the body, but cause disease if in another (for example, the yeast which causes vaginal ‘thrush’ is usually carried harmlessly in the intestine.) Also, some organisms only cause disease when there is a reduction in the population of beneficial germs, for instance in the intestine. The effectiveness of this way of a person being protected from an organism they were carrying by means of a flourishing population of healthy ‘good’ germs may well have decreased after the Flood. The disharmony between man and his environment may have worsened as extinction of some plant species led to dietary restrictions.
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerSince you realize its gobbledegook : why do you insist on posting such nonsense.
This is gobbledygook.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
I'll go into more detail about these points. Maybe I'll open a new thread...
Evolution has never been observed. of course not since it takes too long for us in our limiit time frame to wait for it.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. : that's just plain idiocy.
There are no transitional fossils. that's simply false.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. an over simplification that doesnt quite describe anything.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.: This only shows your lack of understanding of the word Theory.
The Theory of Evolution has a much higher level of certainty than your hypothesis that god exists... which doesn't come close to being a Theory much less a certainty.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
[b]Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
This is totally and completely bogus. This claims shows such an incredible ignorance of that Law that it's amazing.
The 2nd Law governs closed systems. Organisms are not closed systems. All of life is not a closed system. Net entropy increases due to the existence of life primarily in ...[text shortened]... ms break down chemicals for their energy instead, and this chemical breakdown increases entropy.[/b]
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down&rdquo😉. Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information&rdquo😉 needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing&rdquo😉 the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#second