Atheistic View of Creation

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Re: Atheism:

All's well that ends well.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Atheism:

Okay, back at it. Trying to remember where we left off here....

Ah yes, we were getting off track about fossils. We're going to have a problem here, because what you call divergence, I call different animals. I've done some digging here for a couple of minutes, and there really is no end in argument over it, so we should probably just avoid it all together. Creationists claim the divergent species are offshoots of the main branch of evolution, while evolutionists claim they move in a straight line. Both have very convincing information to back up their claims. Ironically, it seems to overlap. haha. The lists you provided claim to have the human ancestry fully mapped, but most know that to be a highly questionable claim, even in evolutionary circles....

Okay, back to origins. You were using the idea of an electromagnetic vacuum to protect the basic building blocks of life through the unstable first x-period of time before life was able to evolve. A kind of molecular stasis field if I’m reading you right. The reason Heisenberg came to mind was the thought of individual atoms being accounted for in a specific order at a specific “time,” and the implications of that for life creation. The problem I find with this is that for the ‘vacuum’ to release its atoms, energy is required to overcome the negative charges that are holding them in place at the quantum level. The sun would indeed be a great source of energy for this, but the release would be anything but complete or organized. Individual atoms would release as they were properly motivated, and would lose any coding they may have contained while in stasis.

You seem to be frustrated at the thought I do not understand you when you say things evolve to become more complex as time goes on. I do understand what you are saying. Here comes the big word entropy again though. The second law tells us that order is decaying. Energy is being spent and bled off in the universe, usually in the form of heat. To look at micro-evolution of an animal is a poor comparison to the addition of complexity in a strand of DNA. For an animal to adapt to its environment in a different way does not add to the complexity of the total creature. Certain character traits are emphasized though breeding, but the ‘source code’ if you would remains either unchanged, or is simplified through the discarding of useless code.

For an RNA strand to form out of simple proteins isn’t possible. I understand that things change and adapt to current environments, but the fragile state of the various amino acids required for development of life could not physically survive the transition process. You’re talking about the addition of million upon millions of ‘bits of data’ in a cell that has no carrier, no shell, no form, and no protection from the elements. It is simply an impossible leap to make the claim that it could do so.

Here we are on life again. LOL My fault. **Clears throat** Creation of the cosmos... The accepted theory is that all matter and energy in the universe were at one point concentrated in a singularity of unknown size. When that singularity went supernova on us, how is it possible that a vastly more complex system came to rise? This is where name callers would say I’m using the watchmaker argument again, but I am not. I am asking a legitimate, scientific question, and I offer no explanation of my own. The accepted laws of physics say this isn’t a reasonable assumption to make. As such, a skeptic MUST question our loyalty to the idea.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Atheism:

Later man, sorry if i was a bit rough there. Happy Holidays to you.

No worries. I knew it was a misunderstanding.

Have a great holiday Ron. Hopefully you're able to get back home for awhile.

Talk soon.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Atheism:

Okay, back at it. Trying to remember where we left off here....

Ah yes, we were getting off track about fossils. We're going to have a problem here, because what you call divergence, I call different animals. I've done some digging here for a couple of minutes, and there really is no end in argument over it, so we should probably just avoid it all together. Creationists claim the divergent species are offshoots of the main branch of evolution, while evolutionists claim they move in a straight line. Both have very convincing information to back up their claims. Ironically, it seems to overlap. haha. The lists you provided claim to have the human ancestry fully mapped, but most know that to be a highly questionable claim, even in evolutionary circles....

Okay, back to origins. You were using the idea of an electromagnetic vacuum to protect the basic building blocks of life through the unstable first x-period of time before life was able to evolve. A kind of molecular stasis field if I’m reading you right. The reason Heisenberg came to mind was the thought of individual atoms being accounted for in a specific order at a specific “time,” and the implications of that for life creation. The problem I find with this is that for the ‘vacuum’ to release its atoms, energy is required to overcome the negative charges that are holding them in place at the quantum level. The sun would indeed be a great source of energy for this, but the release would be anything but complete or organized. Individual atoms would release as they were properly motivated, and would lose any coding they may have contained while in stasis.

You seem to be frustrated at the thought I do not understand you when you say things evolve to become more complex as time goes on. I do understand what you are saying. Here comes the big word entropy again though. The second law tells us that order is decaying. Energy is being spent and bled off in the universe, usually in the form of heat. To look at micro-evolution of an animal is a poor comparison to the addition of complexity in a strand of DNA. For an animal to adapt to its environment in a different way does not add to the complexity of the total creature. Certain character traits are emphasized though breeding, but the ‘source code’ if you would remains either unchanged, or is simplified through the discarding of useless code.

For an RNA strand to form out of simple proteins isn’t possible. I understand that things change and adapt to current environments, but the fragile state of the various amino acids required for development of life could not physically survive the transition process. You’re talking about the addition of million upon millions of ‘bits of data’ in a cell that has no carrier, no shell, no form, and no protection from the elements. It is simply an impossible leap to make the claim that it could do so.

Here we are on life again. LOL My fault. **Clears throat** Creation of the cosmos... The accepted theory is that all matter and energy in the universe were at one point concentrated in a singularity of unknown size. When that singularity went supernova on us, how is it possible that a vastly more complex system came to rise? This is where name callers would say I’m using the watchmaker argument again, but I am not. I am asking a legitimate, scientific question, and I offer no explanation of my own. The accepted laws of physics say this isn’t a reasonable assumption to make. As such, a skeptic MUST question our loyalty to the idea.

I could go on and on about DNA and RNA and how its possible and back it up.....but like you said, lets stay away from life stuff....


When the singularity expanded (exploded, if you like) all of the matter, energy and primitive elements and chemical were thrust out into the cosmos. Now, all of these materials just didn't float along going unchanged. Elements met different elements, chemicals mixed with other chemicals, and different heat and gas sources spawned hybrid elements and materials. When these things come together, they form a mix of chemicals, gases and elements. Simple things coming together, to form a much more intricate form. Yes, thermodynamics states that energy is lost, of course it is. No energy transfer is ever 100% complete, and things decay, but that doesn't in any way harm my idea that I am stating. It could very well be that the abundance of material, matter and energy that formed all that we see is simply and slowly decaying at a pace we have not properly measured, OR the rate of decay isn't uniform, and all the same.

What laws of physics are you specifically concerned about here? I know them all, I'm just wondering.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Atheism:

I could go on and on about DNA and RNA and how its possible and back it up.....but like you said, lets stay away from life stuff....

This would be a great debate. If you start up another thread on it, I'll dive in!!

When the singularity expanded (exploded, if you like) all of the matter, energy and primitive elements and chemical were thrust out into the cosmos. Now, all of these materials just didn't float along going unchanged. Elements met different elements, chemicals mixed with other chemicals, and different heat and gas sources spawned hybrid elements and materials. When these things come together, they form a mix of chemicals, gases and elements. Simple things coming together, to form a much more intricate form. Yes, thermodynamics states that energy is lost, of course it is.

Yes yes, you are right. Elements collided, burned, formed new elements, etc... That would happen if you were to toss a hundred plus elements together with a massive injection of energy to make things dance. New problem. Not a common discussion point either, which will be a nice change.... In the singularity, all elements had to be forced together in a pressure cooker I would be skeptical we could calculate the power of. What could fuse, would no doubt fuse under that pressure, and what could not would simply pool with like elements and wait for something to happen. When the singularity expanded (I think explosion is a better word, but it isn't important), how did the elements break apart again, and move in equal ways in all directions? If Hydrogen was all pooled up on the southern hemisphere, and Germanium was all pooled up in the Northern Hemisphere, how is it possible they both moved in all directions evenly? We would need a chemist to tell us which elements would fuse and which would stay separate, but I'm guessing as an amature they would look very different than they do today. Ask any explosives expert, and they'll all tell you that the nails on top of the frag move up, and the nails on the bottom of the frag move down. How is it physically possible for this to not have happened?

No energy transfer is ever 100% complete, and things decay, but that doesn't in any way harm my idea that I am stating. It could very well be that the abundance of material, matter and energy that formed all that we see is simply and slowly decaying at a pace we have not properly measured, OR the rate of decay isn't uniform, and all the same.

FWIW though, elemental decay is textbook. We know how things fall apart.

What laws of physics are you specifically concerned about here? I know them all, I'm just wondering.

I don't know why this made me laugh. haha. Everybody had to remember the list in H.S., but that's a little different than saying you "know them all."

I'm talking about a cross section of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

I spent some time reading the arguments against the second law tonight, and I'm blown away by some of the statements made. Firstly, the laws still stand as laws, so the scientific community obviously hasn't accepted the arguments against (because they're stupid), and secondly, ... Well, there is no important secondly. The laws still stand.

Basically, the argument against says that nature itself is forcing entropy to expand in the fastest way possible, which is a form of order, and therefore you have order from chaos. ... LOL. Written by smart people for innocent people. It makes me laugh some of the conclusions they draw, but that's neither here nor there. I would LOVE to discuss them further if you have any desire to do so, but I think we're on track here.

Did you have a nice holliday with family and friends? I hope so. Shoot me a PM if you got anything cool worth bragging over.

 

[Tim]

Re: Atheism:

Scott, you keep talking about how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well I found this information for you, maybe it will shed a little light on it.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Atheism:

This would be a great debate. If you start up another thread on it, I'll dive in!!



Yes yes, you are right. Elements collided, burned, formed new elements, etc... That would happen if you were to toss a hundred plus elements together with a massive injection of energy to make things dance. New problem. Not a common discussion point either, which will be a nice change.... In the singularity, all elements had to be forced together in a pressure cooker I would be skeptical we could calculate the power of. What could fuse, would no doubt fuse under that pressure, and what could not would simply pool with like elements and wait for something to happen. When the singularity expanded (I think explosion is a better word, but it isn't important), how did the elements break apart again, and move in equal ways in all directions? If Hydrogen was all pooled up on the southern hemisphere, and Germanium was all pooled up in the Northern Hemisphere, how is it possible they both moved in all directions evenly? We would need a chemist to tell us which elements would fuse and which would stay separate, but I'm guessing as an amature they would look very different than they do today. Ask any explosives expert, and they'll all tell you that the nails on top of the frag move up, and the nails on the bottom of the frag move down. How is it physically possible for this to not have happened?


FWIW though, elemental decay is textbook. We know how things fall apart.



I don't know why this made me laugh. haha. Everybody had to remember the list in H.S., but that's a little different than saying you "know them all."

I'm talking about a cross section of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

I spent some time reading the arguments against the second law tonight, and I'm blown away by some of the statements made. Firstly, the laws still stand as laws, so the scientific community obviously hasn't accepted the arguments against (because they're stupid), and secondly, ... Well, there is no important secondly. The laws still stand.

Basically, the argument against says that nature itself is forcing entropy to expand in the fastest way possible, which is a form of order, and therefore you have order from chaos. ... LOL. Written by smart people for innocent people. It makes me laugh some of the conclusions they draw, but that's neither here nor there. I would LOVE to discuss them further if you have any desire to do so, but I think we're on track here.

Did you have a nice holliday with family and friends? I hope so. Shoot me a PM if you got anything cool worth bragging over.

I was going to respond to the second part, but Tim beat me to it. They are not arguments about the laws, because the processes of the universe simply do not break them. Why exactly do you think the scientific community is "stupid"????


Oh, and things ARE NOT distributed evenly throughout the universe. Its quite the opposite.


I'll be more than happy to start an evolution thread with you later on.



Sorry for the limited response, I'm a bit hung over from last night. But i found a GREAT website the other day that I think you should look into, it will answer a lot of your questions, I think: Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Re: Atheism:

1. I do not want this thread in the Science Section, this is a theological debate, nothing more.
2. Trying to combat an Atheist is like trying to tech a fish how to ride a bicycle.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Atheism:

Scott, you keep talking about how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well I found this information for you, maybe it will shed a little light on it.

Thanks for that list Tim. I actually did come across this same information in my studies the other night. Because I'm not a real live scientist, it made sense to me too, until I read a rebuttal which knocked it down again.

The formation of crystals does not violate the 2nd law (obviously, or it wouldn't exist) because of how the crystals are formed. A crystalline formation is a result of molecules of the donor solution losing energy to the point of coalescence. The surrounding entropy is increased as the cost of the crystal solution. As the molecules begin to collect partners, their draw on the solution becomes more powerful, and the growth increases at further cost to the solution. When entropic equilibrium is reached, the crystal will stop growing. I'd wager very few geologists would question that unless they felt a set-up coming on. haha.

Ice is perhaps an easier crystal to picture. The development of pattern is common place in the Universe. From pulsars, to orbits, they are all around us. But all orbits decay, and all pulsars burn out. Pattern is very different than sequence however. If you are out fishing, and you throw a rock next to somebody’s bobber, the energy transfer of rock to water to bobber will generate a decaying pattern. Up and down, up and down, up and down, until the entropic equilibrium is reached. Under what conditions though, would it that up and down pattern be able to tap out a word in Morse Code? In Morse, there are only two symbols. Dots and dashes. Even with that simple piece of information though, it is pretty apparent that no random act could generate said code. It is estimated that the simplest living creature would require at least 250 genes to sustain life. Genes which could not survive on their own, and could not take energy from the surrounding either to develop more complex, information packed forms of itself.

Now we’re back to life again…. Always seems to come back to that, no matter how hard I try. LOL

Anyway, there it is then.

AEF, perhaps when you’re filling a bit more fit you would come back to us eh? Clear me up on some of this stuff…

Oh, and for the record, I wasn’t calling the scientific community “stupid.” I was actually commenting on the opposite, as they were not willing to let go of the law in order to settle an age old argument. I think it’s rather classy in fact. What I didn’t appreciate was the lengths some will go to in order to deceive. These arguments should be clearly separate issues to somebody who is familiar with the material. :smiley24:

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Atheism:

1. I do not want this thread in the Science Section, this is a theological debate, nothing more.
2. Trying to combat an Atheist is like trying to tech a fish how to ride a bicycle.

It is a very poorly named thread. I tried to change it, but I canna...

Hey, I need a chemist!! I'm honestly not sure how complex a question I'm asking here, so if it's too much, would you please point me in the right direction for appropriate research material?

I would like to find out how the various elements of the Universe would interact in a gravity well a billion billion times greater than anything we have ever seen. Specifically, I would like to be able to figure out what would fuse with what, and what would maintain its own identity.

I would assume some type of experimentation has been accomplished along these lines. The implosion chamber from a fission weapon seems like it would provide a rather handy test bed. ... Hmmm.. How to get everything properly set first though... Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Re: Atheism:

It is a very poorly named thread. I tried to change it, but I canna...

Hey, I need a chemist!! I'm honestly not sure how complex a question I'm asking here, so if it's too much, would you please point me in the right direction for appropriate research material?

I would like to find out how the various elements of the Universe would interact in a gravity well a billion billion times greater than anything we have ever seen. Specifically, I would like to be able to figure out what would fuse with what, and what would maintain its own identity.

I would assume some type of experimentation has been accomplished along these lines. The implosion chamber from a fission seems like it would provide a rather handy test bed. ... Hmmm.. How to get everything properly set first though... Any thoughts or suggestions?

I will answer this in the Q&A thread in Science, at least to the best of my ability.

 

[Peter Parka]

Re: Atheism:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Re: Atheism:

There you have it folks

God exists

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Atheism:

GOD did it, Scott. GOD.


But really, if you want some sort of scientific, comprehensive, specific answer, you need to talk to a person in this field. I only know general things that the scientific community agrees on.

I very much recommend this book for you: Amazon.com: The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design: Books: Richard Dawkins

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: Atheism:

I've tried very hard to keep religion out of this thread. If my count is accurate, I've brought the Divine into my argument a grand total of zero times. Oh, except for that one non-existent time, which would bring the total to ...zero times.

How many times has the Divine been mentioned in the thread by those who don't believe though? I think I have material for another thread cooking here.

I want to talk about science. The nuts and bolts of what we believe, know, trust, blindly accept, and why.

My view is no secret here. I'm proud of it, and make no secret of it. I'm thought an idiot for holding it by some, so I figured I would give you the change to show me the way. Here we are, not 50% through my questions, we're at the end?

You tell me you're right. You tell me I'm wrong. You say you have irrefutable scientific proof to back your views. You tell me my reality is fantasy. Here is your chance to show the metal of what you believe to a person who is willing to speak your language on the subject.

What say you?

 

[All Else Failed]

its because your question is pretty much inherently a theological one. You say the big bang theory is "absurd", so you're pretty much advertising that you think creationism is better. But whatever, it was a joke anyways.

I don't even know why I'm showing all of this to you. You won't accept it anyways because you always want god in the picture. This entire thread I think it just a massive strawman argument.

I don't know all the answers, I admit that, I only post what I know, and what has been proven by science thus far. I'm not a scientist.

 

[Breath]

It's hard to comprehend order being born out of random. You've mentioned natural phenomenon (like DNA), an extremely complex molecule. Do the laws of randomness allow for something so intricate to be made?

 

[All Else Failed]

There is no such thing as "random" in cosmic or biological evolution. That is a myth spread about how evolution works. Natural selection is the exact opposite of "random". All forms of evolution are carefully measured, small events that are guided by nature and the environment.

 

[Breath]

I thought that it also entailed a bit of the so-called butterfly effect. Logic would say that for an event to occur, you might need A + B to = C. If A is modified by D, then it's not available to create C. And so on. Random is definitely a factor.

 

[All Else Failed]

I thought that it also entailed a bit of the so-called butterfly effect. Logic would say that for an event to occur, you might need A + B to = C. If A is modified by D, then it's not available to create C. And so on. Random is definitely a factor.

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution