Impossible evolutionary steps?

[UTEOTW]

"What is DNA?"

It is Deoxyribonucleic Acid. But I am assuming that you meant something a little different.

DNA is the molecule that life uses to store the instructions for making proteins and for replicating the DNA itself. It is not a coded message in the sense of language or anything else you would try and compare it to.

Since that is the direction you are headed, do you have a reason for why each of the 21 items listed above for you are not examples of life naturally creating new messages or order or information or whatever term you choose to apply?

Do you have a definition that we could use for these things?

Do you have an example for us of what you think a new code or information or whatever term you apply would be like?

"We learn something every day, don't we?"

Assertions are easy to make. Can you support your? Are all sciences "atheistic philosoph[ies]" or just those of which you deny the findings? Is chemistry an "atheistic philosophy?" Why not? Remember that I have already listed the observations for evolution for you above. You expressed that you were not familar with them. (I think your words were that you did not even know how to pronounce them.) I am still concerned that you claim that there is no evidence when you are not even casually familar with what the evidence is asserted to be.

"Water can no more freeze spontaneously than it can boil spontaneously. There must be a transfer of heat."

Yes, and that transfer of heat is SPONTANEOUS under certain conditions. Namely if the surroundings are cooler than the water. (This does not even technically have to be true. Have you ever noticed that frost can form when the air temperature remains above freezing? In this case, the heat transfer is thru radiation to deep space. Frost can form this way on clear nights when the temperature drops below about 40 F.) When this condition is met, the heat will spontatneously transfer from the water. The entropy of the water will spontaneously decrease. The entropy of the surroundings will increase and by a larger amount than the decrease in entropy of the water.

Now, will anyone ever propose a mechanism of evolution that is prevented by entropy and tell us how? Or will unsubstantiated assertion be all we ever get?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
... do you have a reason for why each of the 21 items listed above for you are not examples of life naturally creating new messages...

Do you think that God is capable of doing all these 21 things in six days?

Mike

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Yes, and that transfer of heat is SPONTANEOUS under certain conditions. Namely if the surroundings are cooler than the water. (This does not even technically have to be true. Have you ever noticed that frost can form when the air temperature remains above freezing? In this case, the heat transfer is thru radiation to deep space. Frost can form this way on clear nights when the temperature drops below about 40 F.) When this condition is met, the heat will spontatneously transfer from the water. The entropy of the water will spontaneously decrease. The entropy of the surroundings will increase and by a larger amount than the decrease in entropy of the water.

The initiating force is the temperature difference between the earth and outer space. The clear night allows radiative heat transfer so how can you call it spontaneous? Do we get frost when there is a cloud cover and the surface temperature is below 40 F?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
The initiating force is the temperature difference between the earth and outer space. The clear night allows radiative heat transfer so how can you call it spontaneous? Do we get frost when there is a cloud cover and the surface temperature is below 40 F?

You won't get anywhere with this. A spontaneous process is just a process that is thermodynamically feasible. Try asking him a question about God.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

"I have stated before that discussing the errors of evolution is as useless as shoveling manure against a tidal wave. All you get back is more manure. I don't know why I try. The perversity of human nature I guess."

What "errors?"

I have seen a lot of assertions thus far but nothing has been backed up. Making unsubstantiated assetions is not the same as pointing out logical and/or factual errors.

Though I may agree with the analogy. Just not exactly with who is shoveling what, though.

"I do have a question though. I have stated and believe that evolution is an atheistic philosophy. When evolutionists deny the teaching of Scripture [below] how can they be dogmatic about spreading its message?

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. "

Was I made by God or am I the product or reproduction and growth?

I think we will all agree that the answer is both?

You have been trying hard but unsuccessfully to set up a false dilemma. Not that is a logical error. You assert that there is a choice between God and science. There is no such choice. BOTH are true. Nothing in science properly interpreted will contradict anything in the Bible propoerly interpreted. Your interpretation happens to be wrong.

God is the Creator and His Creation tells us without a doubt that He used long processes to accomplish this task.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Do you think that God is capable of doing all these 21 things in six days?"

He is capable of doing anything He wshes in any time period He wishes.

Did you read any of the examples? I have a website to suggest for you.

hhtp://scholar.google.com/

This will allow you to quickly and easily look up the text to the things I posted.

If you do, you will find that many of these are recent examples of new genes, functions, pathways, etc. evolving in very recent time.

So, while God could have done so, He did not.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Did you read any of the examples? I have a website to suggest for you.

I also have a website to suggest for you.

www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

"The initiating force is the temperature difference between the earth and outer space. The clear night allows radiative heat transfer so how can you call it spontaneous? Do we get frost when there is a cloud cover and the surface temperature is below 40 F?"

I think you need to look up the definition of spontaneous. You may want to check out the following.

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/newsite/reference/plambeck/chem2/p02055.htm

Here we find a definition for you.

"If the free energy change is negative, the process can take place spontaneously doing work on the surroundings as it does so."

But the next line may also be important to the discussion.

"If the free energy change is positive, the process is not spontaneous; it will not occur of itself under these conditions but can be driven by application of sufficient energy from the surroundings."

So even processes that are not favorable can proceed when driven by energy from the environment.

Now, which mechanism of evolution are you proposing to be prevented by entropy and why? Mutation? Selection? Migration? Gene flow? Genetic drift? Recombination? What?

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Did you read any of the examples? I have a website to suggest for you.

I also have a website to suggest for you.

www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]You never answer a question do you? Did you read any of the examples? Do you see that evolution can be demonstrated to provide more of what you are calling order? Do you have a refutation handy for all of the items.

And a table of contents is supposed to convince me of what?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So, while God could have done so, He did not.

Were you actually there at the time, observing what God did or did not do?

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

You really need to read the papers cited for you.

If you do, you will fins that the authors observed the new genes and pathways in some of the cases cited for you. So while I did not personally observe this, someone did.

Kind of blows a whole in your assertion that you cannot "smash" together bits of genes and get something new and useful. You can and do. And we have observed it.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You really need to read the papers cited for you.

OK, I'll do a deal with you. You read my book and I'll read some of these papers.

So while I did not personally observe this, someone did.

No, what I meant was, were you there when God created the world (or didn't create the world) six thousand years ago, or millions of years ago? The question was along the lines of Job 38:4.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding."

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

Read them or don't read them. But if you don't, please do not continue to assert things that are refuted by looking at actual data.

And I suppose that you were there at the creation to know that your interpretation is the correct one?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Mike, you are changing the subject. We have been discussing the fact that you claim evolution is contrary to thermodynamics. You need to prove your point with something scientifically substantive, such as "Mutations cannot occur because" . . or "In every generation, we can't expect bad genes to die out due to the very badnesss of their effects because . . " or "We can't expect good genes to become more common due to their helpful good effects because . . " or
"Once one good gene is established, another can't come along also because . . "

And put in there some kind of good, sound scientific reasoning based on thermodynamics alone.

Otherwise, you should drop your argument from thermodynamics and, should you wish to continue to oppose evolution, take up another tack.

Perhaps you could start talking about how there were no witnesses to see life begin and therefore we can't tell if there was evolution or not - meaning, of course, you want every murderer ever convicted without witnesses to be released for lack of evidence -

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And I suppose that you were there at the creation to know that your interpretation is the correct one?

No, I just read a book about it.

Mike

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Was I made by God or am I the product or reproduction and growth?

You are the production of reproduction, however, the first Man, Adam, was not the result of evolution but the direct creation of God.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
God is the Creator and His Creation tells us without a doubt that He used long processes to accomplish this task.

You are entitled to be wrong but you must ask yourself if your insistence upon evolution glorifies God or denies God.

 

[UTEOTW]

There is glory for God the Creator no matter what means He chose to create.

Is there glory in making unsubstantiated assertions about why He could not have used the method that His creation tells us He did? Is there glory about stating that there is no evidence and then admitting that you cannot even pronounce the actual evidence much less show that you have an understanding of what it is? Is there glory in going on and on about why entropy is a problem when you cannot tell one single specific problem?

Do you yet or will you ever have anything to back up your entropy assertons? Will you ever tell us a single mechanism of evolution prevented by entropy and how?

I really doubt it.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OH I see, if you bold your text, that proves something! Strikingly missing, of course, is any explanation of just what part of the theory of eovlution is prohibited by this "second law".

There also seems to be an impression that life = order. As far as the science of thermodynamics is concerned, life is in fact disorder. It is unpredictable, chaotic, and does bad things to our nicely ordered lives! Where life goes, things get messy and entropy increases, the very thing favored by thermodynamics, and therefore life is favored by thermodynamics! (p.s. you can see I'm right because I used exclamation points)

You amaze me. I am beginning to think you are a fake, if I am wrong I apologize, but if I am not...well.... Here is why I feel that you are either a fake or either very liberal (beyond tht of 99% of any Baptist churches.)

You require a naturalistic answer for every single thing. Including the disorder in our lives. Have you not read your Bible and do you recall reading about something called sin?

Do you believe this? Do you believe that humanity fell due to sin?

 

[Phillip]

I ask for the SIXTH time.

If you believe God in your heart exists and He is omnipotent and you ignore the possibility of a supernatural variable in the creation of the universe, then you are practicing bad science. Right?

You are ignoring a variable that you KNOW exists.

Now if a person is an athiest, he/she would be practicing "Good science".

This only shows that science is only as good as what you initial beliefs and rose colored glasses.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
There is glory for God the Creator no matter what means He chose to create.

Evolution by definition is most certainly not creation. It is foolish, false, and blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Do you yet or will you ever have anything to back up your entropy assertons? Will you ever tell us a single mechanism of evolution prevented by entropy and how?

I really doubt it.

I have talked very little abut entropy, however, I have stated repeatedly the following regarding the Second Law:

1] that in all natural processes there is an increase in unavailable energy,
2] that in all natural processes there is an increase in disorder, and
3] that in all natural processes there is a loss of information.

Evolution violates each of these statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a law which Albert Einstein called the “premier law of science”. In summary this Law states that there is an inexorable tendency of all processes toward decay and disorder. All we have to do is look around us and see that this is true. You and I see the Second Law validated each day: living things grow old and die, the bouncing ball or swinging pendulum absent energy input stops, wood rots, machinery wears out. Evolution demands the reverse, that order comes spontaneously out of disorder.

The following statement by English mathematician and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington is worth repeating: “If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

Now I don't know you but I doubt that you are in the same class intellectually as either Eddington or Einstein.

Further discussion on my part is useless. Your ego apparently requires you to ignore the teachings of Scripture and embrace an atheistic philosophy. A salient point: If it were not atheistic why would the ACLU and the elite humanists allow it to be taught in the schools?

Bye Bye