Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
As it turns out it was merely an accurate observation. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

Random genetic mutations only scramble gene sequences and make inorder out of order.
Not true.

Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
and order always deteriorates,
Not true, even in a closed system. Entr ...[text shortened]... the square root of pi, but who cares? At least some of them know what entropy is, unlike you.[/b]

Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
What, we're in an open system?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
What, we're in an open system?[/b]

YES

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
What, we're in an open system?[/b]

In terms of what's relevant for evolution, yes.

In terms of what csmatyi was saying, who knows (or really cares)?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Entropy always increases,
True only for a closed system.
What, we're in an open system?[/b]

More accurately: "Entropy always increases" is true only for a closed system taken as a whole. Local decreases in entropy are always possible in any system whether closed or open. The universe as a whole may be a closed system (I don't actually know) but that is irrelevant as the poster was arguing along the lines of "entropy always increases everywhere even locally" which is false. Certainly I know of no contradiction whatsoever between any scientific theory (including the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution) and the possibility that entropy in the universe as a whole is constantly increasing.
Or was your question actually your usual "I am not making any actual claims or arguments, just trying to shed doubt on everything"

Originally posted by twhitehead
More accurately: "Entropy always increases" is true only for a closed system taken as a whole. Local decreases in entropy are always possible in any system whether closed or open. The universe as a whole may be a closed system (I don't actually know) but that is irrelevant as the poster was arguing along the lines of "entropy always increases everywhere e ...[text shortened]... "I am not making any actual claims or arguments, just trying to shed doubt on everything"

Entropy always increases on average in a closed system. As a stochastic process, random fluctuations of decrease of entropy are possible. If inner forces exist in the closed system, even morey likely are these local decreases of entropy to occur.
In an open system which is constantly receiving outside energy (e.g. Earth receiving sunlight) it's more then natural that it's entropy is a lot lower then the outside system.

Well... you are right in everything... just wanted to complement a little.

Originally posted by telerion
KJ, why do you even pretend to know what you're talking about? Just go back to "it's all faith" and be happy in your ignorance. When you try to debunk science and mathematics with cheap Creationist claptrap that you picked up in church and retreats and on the web, you look like a fool. You're trying to critique a method about which you know next to nothi ...[text shortened]... gives you the audacity to think you know even the slightest about any of this discussion?

The only thing on full display here is your arrogance in declarations how
it is next to impossible it is you can possibly be wrong, coupled with your
condescending wit, and your boundless “patience” for spelling errors.

If you do not have all the necessarily data points your information can
lead you to draw wrong conclusions. (true no matter what the subject)

If there is something about the data you do not fully understand that can
lead you to draw wrong conclusions. (true no matter what the subject)

Yet you have a vested interest in it because it validates your views of the
universe, so much so you refuse to think you can be wrong about this, you
really want the data to be what you say it is! So much so that you just don’t
tolerate descent and don’t mind smearing those that do disagree due to their
audacity to speak up, they cannot possibly have any understanding if they
do not agree with your conclusions or are not as convinced as you are that
you are right! I without hesitation say I don’t know what the age of the
earth or universe is, I have a belief about it, yet that isn’t a fact, I
acknowledge I can be wrong, you on the other hand have it settled in your
mind and do not allow for the possibility of a gross error due to your grasp
of processes of the universe may be lacking due to something you don’t
see or fully understand at the moment.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you do not have all the necessarily data points your information can lead you to draw wrong conclusions. (true no matter what the subject)

If there is something about the data you do not fully understand that can lead you to draw wrong conclusions. (true no matter what the subject)

Yet when I point out that your observations apply to everything including your belief that you hold car keys in your hand for example you turn around and say "but that is a fact".
The issue here is not whether it is possible that we are wrong but how we estimate the likelihood that we are wrong. When we look at our hand and see car keys, we estimate the likelihood that the keys are really there and not an optical illusion based on our vast experience with looking at things. Magicians take advantage of the fact that we trust our eyes overmuch and can fool us. (I myself can do a few good card tricks).
With regards to the age of the earth, the data available is so extensive and all fits so perfectly that the likelihood that our interpretation is an illusion is so minuscule as to be easily equated to the likelihood that your car keys are a mere illusion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yet you have a vested interest in it because it validates your views of the universe, ....

My view of the universe is not and has never been dependent on the age of the earth, and I don't need it to be validated. Scientists do not create the data to fit their views the way creationists do, instead their views are based on the data. If you can provide any contradictory data then every genuine scientist will be interested and not reject it due to "vested interests".
However you are not presenting data, you are not even presenting a logical alternative explanation for the current data, you are merely saying "your data is wrong and I don't like it".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet when I point out that your observations apply to everything including your belief that you hold car keys in your hand for example you turn around and say "but that is a fact".
The issue here is not whether it is possible that we are wrong but how we estimate the likelihood that we are wrong. When we look at our hand and see car keys, we estimate the ...[text shortened]... so minuscule as to be easily equated to the likelihood that your car keys are a mere illusion.

You are of the opinion that holding a set of keys in your hand and knowing they are
there is equal to believing what occurred billions of years ago by a reading you get
when you apply a test to a piece of the universe in the here and now, than not much
we can say to each other, you are a true believer. From my vantage point if I have
keys in hand they are in my hand no faith required that is a factual statement, your
test can and will give you a result no doubt, the result will be the fact, you did this
and that occurred. What you believe that means is altogether different, and if your
tests lack vital components or you lack understanding on what is really going on
that can screw up your conclusions.

With regard to the likely hood of you being wrong, that is my point, you don’t think
you can be, you BELIEVE you have the answers, what you believe occurred billions
of years ago is a fact for you! You are a true believer, and anyone who disagrees with
some here or just as bad doesn’t agree with the same level of confidence as you seem
to have obviously is some how lacking in intelligence or competence on the subject
matter, and should keep their mouths closed I suppose or they will be belittled by
name calling and so on.

As far as your illusionist slight of hand and keys are concern, you believe the whole
universe to be an illusion?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
My view of the universe is not and has never been dependent on the age of the earth, and I don't need it to be validated. Scientists do not create the data to fit their views the way creationists do, instead their views are based on the data. If you can provide any contradictory data then every genuine scientist will be interested and not reject it due to tion for the current data, you are merely saying "your data is wrong and I don't like it".

Lie, I do not create the data to fit my beliefs, and if that does go on I
would not suggest all people who believe in the big bang did it or
that only creationist did it, for me it would be people of weak minds
and convictions. That would flow into both camps, I resent your attack
on my faith, that was gutless.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Lie, I do not create the data to fit my beliefs, and if that does go on I
would not suggest all people who believe in the big bang did it or
that only creationist did it, for me it would be people of weak minds
and convictions. That would flow into both camps, I resent your attack
on my faith, that was gutless.
Kelly

My apologies, I incorrectly used the term creationists to mean the group of people who claim that there is evidence for biblical creation. I did not mean to include you. You are in a minority however. Every creationist, other than you, I have personally met or communicated with about the subject has made false claims that they either do not know anything about but are repeating what some pastor told them or that they know to be false.
You on the other hand prefer to make no apparent claims whatsoever but nevertheless seek to shed unreasonable doubt on anything that does not conform to your faith.
You do seem to make the claim that someone is more likely to be wrong about something that happened a long time ago, the longer ago it was irrespective of the available data about the event. You however are yet to produce a compelling argument to support your case and so far amounts to little more than personal skepticism on your part.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies, I incorrectly used the term creationists to mean the group of people who claim that there is evidence for biblical creation. I did not mean to include you. You are in a minority however. Every creationist, other than you, I have personally met or communicated with about the subject has made false claims that they either do not know anything ...[text shortened]... nt to support your case and so far amounts to little more than personal skepticism on your part.

So tell me, how are you different than those creationist that tell you
things they believe are factsl?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only thing on full display here is your arrogance in declarations how
it is next to impossible it is you can possibly be wrong, coupled with your
condescending wit, and your boundless “patience” for spelling errors.

If you do not have all the necessarily data points your information can
lead you to draw wrong conclusions. (true no matter what the ...[text shortened]... niverse may be lacking due to something you don’t
see or fully understand at the moment.
Kelly

KJ, I'm not saying that you are stupid for disagreeing about the age of the Earth. After all, even in radiometric dating tests, an age of 6,000 years has some positive probability, albeit an absurdly small one.

My post was not to tell you to stop questioning the age of the Earth. Rather it was trying to get you to reflect and realize that you have no understanding of statistics, probability, and stochastic process. In the face of statistical arguments you have continually resorted to "Yeah, but your results won't work if X (e.g. don't have all the data points, there is a "stress" influencing the system)." When others here, some of whom have advanced training in statistical methods assure you that this is not the case and even offer some rough explanations as to why, you doggedly shrug them off, as if your blind intuition on a statistical matter is more accurate than years of specialized training.

As for not accepting anything that does not conform to my current view on the age of the Earth, I think you have got yourself turned around somewhere. That is your position to a 'T'. Empirical evidence has absolutely zero merit to you as long as you believe that Genesis chapters 1-2 says something different. Quite simply you give no practical consideration to the possibility that Genesis is wrong. Effectively, it is impossible to you for that passage to be in err. Therefore there must always exist some unknown factors, no matter how nebulous or ridiculous, which will explain away any empirical findings that casts strong doubt upon your interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Going further, you don't even feel compelled to show the existence of such factors, through testing and identification. For you, mere conjectures that some such factor exists is sufficient to placate your intellectual conscience.

Well, not for me. I want to know if my current knowledge of things matches up with what we observe. If large amounts of evidence support me then great. If the evidence is strongly against me then I'll change and the evidence once again will support my position. If empirical findings are ambiguous so that multiple hypotheses are well supported, then I choose to reserve judgement on the matter. Like you, I want my beliefs to be validated. I'm just not willing to claim validation unless we have some very strong empirical support. Phantom factors (or 'stresses'😉 don't cut it in my book. Accepting them would be intellectually dishonest to myself, and when I was on the mission field, dishonest to those to whom I preached.

Originally posted by telerion
KJ, I'm not saying that you are stupid for disagreeing about the age of the Earth. After all, even in radiometric dating tests, an age of 6,000 years has some positive probability, albeit an absurdly small one.

My post was not to tell you to stop questioning the age of the Earth. Rather it was trying to get you to reflect and realize that you have no ...[text shortened]... self, and when I was on the mission field, dishonest to those to whom I preached.

What are you trying to do? Being canonized? I envy your patience.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So tell me, how are you different than those creationist that tell you
things they believe are factsl?
Kelly

Can't you really understand the difference?
Your argument is based on "all your data can be wrong, so you can be wrong". You don't support your opinion, you are only trying to put our points of view in the same level by saying there must be a leap of faith somewhere in both points of view.
We argued that statistics sort out your "stress" and data points being wrong. But I think you didn't quite understand it.
I only can't understand how you dare to criticize our point of view when you clearly have no knowledge of statistics or physics or geology.
More: only obstinate religious fanatics defend your point of view.