Posted on 10/03/2006 7:19:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
So DM, in that spirit, what's required here is a true prediction. One requirement therefore is that you have a logical deduction from Creationism to your conclusion. The logical steps must be spelled out. So far you haven't made an argument which starts with Creationism and ends with devolution as a necessary consequence.
Naturally another requirement is we all have to agree on what your prediction and terms means. That entails being really precise about this devolution you mention. For example, I suggest we stick to *biological* devolution and develop that as an explicit concept. Then you have to decide if it is general in nature or if, for example, it only applies to people. You also need to be specific about how this devolution is to be verified.
I think it could be fun.
Thanks!
These debates often to be the same ole pissing matches, but what is really happening is that they are getting a bit more sophisticated.
Well, sometimes anyway.
Exactly. That's what I bumped into when you examined my statement through questions.
Much less interesting a law than the one that has been bouncing around my head for many years.
The law is about heat, as it should be, and not about system order.
As it turns out creation does predict devolution but God has invented this thing where the strong breed better than the week. Let's call it something like, um, best breeding of the fittest, or survival of the strongest breeders or something like that. ;-)
These little errors and weaknesses in genetics will just disappear. There are also many species that are weak breeders. Notice how many sparrows you see, and are not two of them sold for a penny?, yet notice how few blue birds you see. Strong breeder vs week breeder.
All you really see in nature is breeding and the elimination of genetic errors, devolution. What you never ever see is any improvement. Every day that you don't see an improvement in a species, and that will be everyday, you are seeing a prediction of evolution coming true.
Now with man we are seeing genetic errors accumulate. Again what we are not seeing is improvement. Now lets start considering how many people we know that are near sighted, or far sighted and more and more dramatically so. Compare that to how many people you see that are eagle eyed. I don't know any. This is part of the same Creation prediction.
Taco bells time, I'll be right back, thanks for not all attacking my first mistake.
What do you mean when you say 'genetic error'?
Methodological Naturalism on Trial?
So now there are two more gaps in the evolution of eyes.
So your religion is atheism. Big deal.
Nah just a crack on a Seinfeld episode that amuses me..
Hear, hear! Kudos, DM, for moving the discussion in the right direction.
Well, it's a start, but specificity is the key. "The human condition will devolve" is quite a vague statement. What quantifies this? Upon what criteria does one base the quality of the human condition? From what I've seen, the human condition has improved over the last few thousand years, with, on the whole, greatly improved human rights, quality of life, sanitation, economic conditions, and human lifespans, largely in thanks to the fruits of the Enlightenment. Also, if you can quantify this, it remains to be explained why this is a consequence of creationism.
DM, I do give you immense credit for correcting your error regarding the authorship of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (we all make mistakes); however, this doesn't change the fact that you can't handwave this law as such. To apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you very plainly need to define a boundary around a thermodynamic system, quantify (or at least determine the extreme limits of) the entropy of the system, and quantify (or, again, at least approximate the extreme limits of) the amount of energy entering the system. Only if the energy input is too low for the rate of increase of the entropy of this system (as can be calculated thermodynamically), is the 2nd Law violated.
Truth is, the boundary conditions on specific biological systems in the distant past can't be specified to this extent. The only known system where we can even make such a gross approximative calculation is the biosphere as a whole; in which case very simple calculations show that the evolution of this thermodynamic system does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Truth is, thermodynamics, like all physics theories, just doesn't have any power to work unless the conditions upon which its effectiveness depends are specified. Ironically, creationists are the ones who accuse people of using science to overstep the bounds of its applicability, when that is precisely what they do with thermodynamics (and quite poorly) - the 2LoT isn't an argument that's going to win over anyone who understands how it is used.
In short, creationist websites are lying about evolution violating thermodynamics.
I wonder what else they're lying about???
Tangentially I'd note that if two theories make the same prediction, the prediction is no basis to prefer one or the other. But still, any prediction from Creationism would be interesting.
This 2nd law stuff is a red herring. Unless the 2nd law is shown to follow logically as a consequence from Creationism, even if one could somehow show that the 2nd law predicts devolution (which I agree isn't specifically defined yet), it does nothing to show that Creationism predicts devolution.
It was never truer what the Dover ID supporter stated: "We are being attacked by the intelligent, educated part of our society."
It's worse than that, it's blatant lie on creationist websites that is oft recited by people, and exemplary of the scientific bankruptcy of creationism. Anyone who's taken even an undergraduate engineering or physics course in thermodynamics can (or should be able to) see through it like a pane of glass; the deception relies on the fact that many (even well-read) people only have a cursory familiarity with the law.
Another valid statement of the 2nd Law is that heat (in a solid body, like an iron rod) never spontaneously moves from a cold region to a warmer region. In this form, it is far less impressive as any kind of statement about biological systems.
Well in my creation theorie prediction thing, Adam and Eve have perfect vision. The fact that so many people today are born with less than perfect vision, and some people are even born blind is an error in genetics. Somewhere Adam and Eve's perfect dna was damaged. In many places and many times, more likely, the original dna was damaged.
So the creation model predicts this and also predicts that there will be zero people that are born with 10x eagle vision, or owl darkness vision, or superman xray vision. This prediction has also come true.
Thank you sir!
#44 and #58
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.