Celtic Heroes

The thing you must realize is that the things that evolution needs to explain or rationalize, creationism either doesn't need to explain or it would expect it or its plausible explanations are more plausible than evolutions.

Wait, I do not understand... Are you saying only evolution needs evidence and rationalisation whilst creationism gets a free ride? I understand that religion needs some leeway since the general idea is that there exists a power beyond our understanding but I still think there is a need for some level of hard evidence and rational thought for everything. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the quote.

You are forgiven. I am saying that the holes in evolution are a lot bigger than the holes in creation. Natural laws such as the laws of thermodynamics go against evolution. Creationism would easily accommodate if not expect the laws of thermodynamics. This is just one example. I definately believe that you should test your believe. Imo creation is more plausible than evolution.

Im sorry but in what universe does thermodynamics go against evolution?

The thing you must realize is that the things that evolution needs to explain or rationalize, creationism either doesn't need to explain or it would expect it or its plausible explanations are more plausible than evolutions.

Wait, I do not understand... Are you saying only evolution needs evidence and rationalisation whilst creationism gets a free ride? I understand that religion needs some leeway since the general idea is that there exists a power beyond our understanding but I still think there is a need for some level of hard evidence and rational thought for everything. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the quote.

You are forgiven. I am saying that the holes in evolution are a lot bigger than the holes in creation. Natural laws such as the laws of thermodynamics go against evolution. Creationism would easily accommodate if not expect the laws of thermodynamics. This is just one example. I definately believe that you should test your believe. Imo creation is more plausible than evolution.

thermodynamics is all about heat and energy being equal from input to output and what not. Nothing to do with evolution. Sounds like you are protecting your biggest 2014 moron title well. Although we do have a few contenders. (redDogy being the runner-up)

thermodynamics is all about heat and energy being equal from input to output and what not. Nothing to do with evolution. Sounds like you are protecting your biggest 2014 moron title well. Although we do have a few contenders. (redDogy being the runner-up)

says the person who says that unintelligent cells can know if wings are useless or not for humans

The thing you must realize is that the things that evolution needs to explain or rationalize, creationism either doesn't need to explain or it would expect it or its plausible explanations are more plausible than evolutions.

Wait, I do not understand... Are you saying only evolution needs evidence and rationalisation whilst creationism gets a free ride? I understand that religion needs some leeway since the general idea is that there exists a power beyond our understanding but I still think there is a need for some level of hard evidence and rational thought for everything. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the quote.

You are forgiven. I am saying that the holes in evolution are a lot bigger than the holes in creation. Natural laws such as the laws of thermodynamics go against evolution. Creationism would easily accommodate if not expect the laws of thermodynamics. This is just one example. I definately believe that you should test your believe. Imo creation is more plausible than evolution.

Ok, I see what you mean but I would argue that the holes in creationism are in fact bigger. The laws of thermodynamics do not go against evolution. In fact, evolution does not appear to contradict any known laws of physics at this time, to the best of my understanding.

I am prepared to explain it but please note, I am not a physicist so there may be an error in my understanding and I will do some more research later. For now, let's start with the real controversy you are leading to which is between the second law of thermodynamics (aka law of entropy) and evolution.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of a closed system will increase with time and, therefore, the universe as a whole will continue to become more disordered and random as time goes on. However, it is still possible for one part of that closed system to become more ordered as long as another part becomes more disordered.

Take a construction project, for example. You would use materials like wood and pieces of metal and then organise them in a way that suits your needs. You create order in that one aspect, however, that physical work produces heat energy that escapes and increases the overall entropy of the system.

So in evolution, you are not exactly heading towards perfection but you can still become more ordered in some aspects whilst becoming more disordered in another or the change may not even be apparent within us but in the universe as a whole.

As for why the universe is not in total chaos, well, we do not know. Perhaps the disorder is being sucked away into a black hole, leaking out into another universe, or the universe is not even a closed system and disorder only arises in pieces of the universe. We can really only apply physics to Earth and perhaps the solar system. The rest of the universe may have things that defy our laws or significantly change them.

thermodynamics is all about heat and energy being equal from input to output and what not. Nothing to do with evolution. Sounds like you are protecting your biggest 2014 moron title well. Although we do have a few contenders. (redDogy being the runner-up)

says the person who says that unintelligent cells can know if wings are useless or not for humans

Evolution is a chance that a mutation will occur and improve the odds of a survival to a point where the organism can pass on that mutation. There is no conscious effort to change.

thermodynamics is all about heat and energy being equal from input to output and what not. Nothing to do with evolution. Sounds like you are protecting your biggest 2014 moron title well. Although we do have a few contenders. (redDogy being the runner-up)

says the person who says that unintelligent cells can know if wings are useless or not for humans

Evolution is a chance that a mutation will occur and improve the odds of a survival to a point where the organism can pass on that mutation. There is no conscious effort to change.

Yes of course there cant be a conscious choice, but magixal said that cells can make that choice. Big mistake.

Wait, I do not understand... Are you saying only evolution needs evidence and rationalisation whilst creationism gets a free ride? I understand that religion needs some leeway since the general idea is that there exists a power beyond our understanding but I still think there is a need for some level of hard evidence and rational thought for everything. Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the quote.

You are forgiven. I am saying that the holes in evolution are a lot bigger than the holes in creation. Natural laws such as the laws of thermodynamics go against evolution. Creationism would easily accommodate if not expect the laws of thermodynamics. This is just one example. I definately believe that you should test your believe. Imo creation is more plausible than evolution.

Ok, I see what you mean but I would argue that the holes in creationism are in fact bigger. The laws of thermodynamics do not go against evolution. In fact, evolution does not appear to contradict any known laws of physics at this time, to the best of my understanding.

I am prepared to explain it but please note, I am not a physicist so there may be an error in my understanding and I will do some more research later. For now, let's start with the real controversy you are leading to which is between the second law of thermodynamics (aka law of entropy) and evolution.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of a closed system will increase with time and, therefore, the universe as a whole will continue to become more disordered and random as time goes on. However, it is still possible for one part of that closed system to become more ordered as long as another part becomes more disordered.

That's correct - basically the textbook definition.

Take a construction project, for example. You would use materials like wood and pieces of metal and then organise them in a way that suits your needs. You create order in that one aspect, however, that physical work produces heat energy that escapes and increases the overall entropy of the system.

That's true about the heat but there are other kinds as well. Obtaining all those materials created quite a bit of disorder also. Order is akin to entropy in thermodynamics as there are relatively few ways order can occur compared to the nearly infinite ways things could be ordered. Therefore with random changes being introduced all the time for a variety of reasons, things will statistically tend toward a disordered state.

So in evolution, you are not exactly heading towards perfection but you can still become more ordered in some aspects whilst becoming more disordered in another or the change may not even be apparent within us but in the universe as a whole.

Evolution heads in no particular direction - perfection or otherwise. Random mutations occur frequently in large populations. Those that provide a positive effect in survivability, adaptability, or are otherwise passed along to offspring at a higher rate survive. Those with a neutral aspect are not selected for. Those with a negative effect on survivability, adaptability, or otherwise are not passed along to offspring do not survive. Some of these gene sequences even get copied to other locations that go mostly unused - but could be regurgitated in later mutations - sort of an archiving process. The result is a large realm of possibility of mutations gets trimmed as to what mutations have occurred and then subsequently gets trimmed away again by environmental effects that on large timescales are anything but random or chance. Rather they become like air pressure - random but with a large enough area and time have an extremely reliable and predictable average value. Some species like particular cockroaches have been so well adapted that positive mutations almost never occur which is why they are not really moving in evolutionary terms. For humans in the past 500k years many changes have occurred as we are in no such local equilibrium with the environmental pressures.

As for why the universe is not in total chaos, well, we do not know. Perhaps the disorder is being sucked away into a black hole, leaking out into another universe, or the universe is not even a closed system and disorder only arises in pieces of the universe. We can really only apply physics to Earth and perhaps the solar system. The rest of the universe may have things that defy our laws or significantly change them.

The universe started out highly ordered with low entropy - a huge amount of energy in a small space. Also quantum sizes of particles did not change - so this made things a bit 'grainy'. As everything has expanded this entropy is lower. In about 10^10^120 years everything will wind down to its final state and there will be no more useful energy. This does not require anything outside of the 3 spatial dimensions and time or the standard model of physics. As of today there is still plenty of concentrated energy sources and will be for some time.

Its interesting that using known laws of quantum mechanics to make predictions that the chance of a random fluctuation being as large as the big bang we have observed should be on the order of once every 10^10^56 years.

thermodynamics is all about heat and energy being equal from input to output and what not. Nothing to do with evolution. Sounds like you are protecting your biggest 2014 moron title well. Although we do have a few contenders. (redDogy being the runner-up)

says the person who says that unintelligent cells can know if wings are useless or not for humans

the cells are just as un-intelligent as you. Your brain is a combination of cells. Ergo u just called itself stupid. nice mate.

thermodynamics is all about heat and energy being equal from input to output and what not. Nothing to do with evolution. Sounds like you are protecting your biggest 2014 moron title well. Although we do have a few contenders. (redDogy being the runner-up)

says the person who says that unintelligent cells can know if wings are useless or not for humans

I didn't say you can make the choice btw. Your body alters and if the gene is useful. It passes on if not it dies out. Simple