[mike777]

Let's keep in mind the old saying the operation was a success but the patient died.

Even people who get "cured" die so lets not only focus on that....

I do not see anyone advocating we stop funding basic medical research just let it evolve....

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jan 30 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

Quote

I'm actually kind of surprised that the placebo effect was even debatable.

This is so weird. I keep saying the same thing over and over and am ignored and rebutted for something I didn't say.

One more time - the placebo effect is not in question. What has been questioned is your statements that placebos cure and that faith cures.

winston, have there been instances of a cure when only a placebo was used? if so, what did the curing? the placebo itself?

Jimmy,

That's where we got off topic. I simply said I know of no study that showed that a placebo cured - I also said I am not an expert but do work in this field so would be glad to know of a verified study that proved the claim.

After that, it got weird.

[Winstonm]

Someone who knows logic better than I help me, please. Isn't this:

Quote

'The only way in which we could expect [a Creator] to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find...'

an example of begging the question?

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

Someone who knows logic better than I help me, please. Isn't this:

Quote

'The only way in which we could expect [a Creator] to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find...'

an example of begging the question?

Certainly with respect to the first premise ("the only way in which we could expect...") Why is that the only way we could expect a Creator to show itself?



It also strikes me as a form of affirming the consequent, i.e. "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P."
e.g. "If nobody is home, then we would expect to find the house quiet. The house is quiet; therefore, nobody is home."

[mikeh]

Quote

this is completely false... i've yet to see anyone on the other side of this argument use the terms and tactics (and fallacies) you use... you constantly appeal to ridicule and assert opinion as if it's fact... rarely do you deign to put an 'imo' in a post.. we all argue circularly to a degree, because we all start from our own presuppositions... the difference is, you don't admit it... you prefer to say that, because of your superior intellect, which allows you to understand more of what you read than those who disagree with you, you are right and others are wrong

LOL.. I doubt that even the antichrist of evolution (as fluffy referred to Dawkins) would engender this impassioned a post. I am impressed.

Perhaps I touched a nerve by asking you questions you cannot answer, except, as Josh has pointed out, with nonsense... words empty of content.

Please identify for me where I have EVER claimed to have a 'superior intellect'. My opinion of my intellect is a private concern that I do not publish, but I can assure you that I am fully aware of at least some of my limitations. If I need reminding, I debate bridge theory on these fora, where I have frequently discovered limitations, and sometimes admit to them That was a joke, btw... life as a whole, in addition to bridge, is a virtually continual lesson in humility, even if I am a poor student.. and my reading informs me, often, that I am dealing with an intellect considerably more powerful than mine. And most of the posters on BBO were not exactly hiding behind the door when brains were being handed out.

I have said, on a few occasions, that I have read material that another poster says he or she read, and that I gained a different impression. Obviously, unless I had since been persuaded that my reading was in error, I will assert that mine was correct.. but, just as with bridge arguments, I am always open to someone pointing out where I went wrong... are you?

And if you have in fact read all of my posts, surely you have seen where I repeatedly concede that I advance only my understanding.. not only is that explicit in several posts (in which I try to make it clear that this is a universal characteristic in my posts) but surely that should be understood... except where I refer to other sources or authorities by name... I would have thought it apparent to the dimmest intellect, and that would not be you no matter what you think my opinion of you may be, that I am expressing MY opinions, MY understanding and that I am always open to and love to learn of verifiable ideas and facts and plausible hypotheses that will expand and enhance my understanding in any of the areas of enquiry into which I like to read... bridge, evolution, physics, cooking, history, wine.. whatever. I have a curiosity about the hows and whys of a lot of aspects of our world... and I seek to acquire as deep an understanding as my limited time, resources and, yes, intellect permit. That is why I engage in these debates.. I actually learned something today.. I read a book by Lewis... I had read a lot about Lewis but had failed to actually read him... now that I have, I am glad that I did. He writes well..... and while I disagree with his reasoning and conclusions, I did gain some further insight into the ideas that perhaps persuade some believers. Oh, and I didn't misquote him.. I didn't quote every passage but I assure you (and any other reader) that I was accurate in what I did quote... if you doubt me, follow the link Richard posted.

BTW, in terms of my use of 'begs the question', maybe we see that phrase differently. When I say that answering questions of the origin of the universe by attributing the origin to god 'begs the question' of how, when, where, why and who is this god-person anyway... I mean that to me, the spirit of enquiry doesn't shut down when I am given a content-free, black-box type of answer... that answer itself prompts or (and this is an archaic usage) 'begs' the question... how, where, why etc.

For you, it doesn't. Your curiosity is satisfied by the mystical, content-free formulation that it was God. So be it. That's your choice.. but to attack those who want to ask further questions is a bit weird.

As it is, I take your attack on me as a compliment. A man can be judged by who his enemies are, as much as by who his friends are.. and you seem to have taken on the former role... I hope, only for the purposes of the wc. Have fun.... but, if we ever meet, allow me to buy you a drink and to shake your hand.. I do not ever doubt your sincerity... I disagree with your ideas, and your reasoning, but not your sincerity.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jan 30 2009, 07:08 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

Someone who knows logic better than I help me, please.  Isn't this:

Quote

'The only way in which we could expect [a Creator] to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find...'

an example of begging the question?

Certainly with respect to the first premise ("the only way in which we could expect...") Why is that the only way we could expect a Creator to show itself?



It also strikes me as a form of affirming the consequent, i.e. "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P."
e.g. "If nobody is home, then we would expect to find the house quiet. The house is quiet; therefore, nobody is home."

Thanks.

[Winstonm]

Quote

When I say that answering questions of the origin of the universe by attributing the origin to god 'begs the question' of how, when, where, why and who is this god-person anyway... I mean that to me, the spirit of enquiry doesn't shut down when I am given a content-free, black-box type of answer... that answer itself prompts or (and this is an archaic usage) 'begs' the question... how, where, why etc.

I think this is somewhat a debate over semantics - when Mike says begs the question I understand him to mean "raises the question(s)" while Jimmy seems to be holding solely to the concept of "begs the question" as a formal logic fallacy.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 02:35 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 30 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 30 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

Mike as much as I agree with the main parts of what you said, I think at times you are your own worst enemy in this debate, at least if your goal is to convince anyone who believes oppositely. Then again that tends to prove impossible no matter which side you are on, so if your goal is just having an interesting discussion or expressing your beliefs then go for it. I just thought lawyers like winning, especially when they believe they are right (or maybe I should say especially when they believe they are wrong.)

I accept your observations... and maybe I should tone it down a bit It is tough, tho.. both sides use the same words ~~

this is completely false... i've yet to see anyone on the other side of this argument use the terms and tactics (and fallacies) you use... you constantly appeal to ridicule and assert opinion as if it's fact... rarely do you deign to put an 'imo' in a post.. we all argue circularly to a degree, because we all start from our own presuppositions... the difference is, you don't admit it... you prefer to say that, because of your superior intellect, which allows you to understand more of what you read than those who disagree with you, you are right and others are wrong

on a point from an earlier post concerning metaphysical laws, there are many... law of identity, laws of logic, law of entrophy (einstein: “premier law of all of science” - eddington: “supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe"), etc.

i do have a question (not to argue, but for edification) concerning the theory of evolution... if my understanding is faulty here, i'm sure someone will correct me... am i correct that for this theory to be true inorganic atoms and molecules combined, more or less spontaneously, to form protein (and other even more complex molecules) and from these (adding a measure of time) even more complex beings were formed? and that this order from chaos all came together from its natural state? that dna formed in this manner?

i can find many quotes from evolutionists who find this to be - well, let's just say unlikely (since you don't seem to like the idea of odds)... one that expresses what many have said is George Stravropoulos, from the American Scientist:

"Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law [of thermodynamics]. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science. "

now one might argue about his "... under ordinary conditions ..." but i don't know what the argument would look like

as for your critique of 'mere christianity', i'll just point out to one omission you made concerning lewis' description of Jesus... he said he'd be crazy, the son of God, or a liar... you left off (or i missed it) 'liar'

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...

You read need to learn how to do some basic research before dragging out those awesome cut and paste skills...

You're parroting materials from popular anti evolution web sites. If you spent a bit more time research the topic, you'd soon discover that the article "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977 was actually authored by a man named Victor Weisskopf

George P. Stravropoulos was a random crank who wrote a letter to the editor disagreeing with the contents of Weisskopf's article...

[Winstonm]

Here are two totally different views - first, from DarwinismRefuted.com:

Quote

Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics

From Addendum A to "Bad Science, Worse Philosophy" by Richard Carrier

Quote

In fact, order can only be produced by increasing entropy. This is because producing order out of chaos involves a change in the system, which can only be produced by expending energy. The expenditure of energy is never perfectly efficient and so it always increases the overall amount of energy that is irretrievably disordered, even as order is produced from the remaining energy. Since ordering requires an increase in entropy, it is a bit ironic to find creationists claiming entropy as an anti-ordering process (which it is not) in order to "prove" special creation, when it would make more sense to use it as an ordering process to "prove" divine arrangement of the laws of physics. However, I must head off such a switch-hitting strategy. There is no sign of intelligent design in the Second Law. It is actually the only logical way that any mindless, material universe would operate. Since it is the logically necessary result of any universe which contains bits of mass-energy that never change in quantity, all that is needed for this law to materialize is such a universe, leaving no room for any intelligent tinkering--except at the point of the creation of those bits of stuff or the space and time in which they move, but that is another story. When we examine the Second Law alone, we see that it would be the natural result of any undesigned but merely existing universe, which contained an unchanging quantity of bits. At the same time, we see that this law prevails over and defines every change in the universe we happen to be in, and yet in no way prevents natural order from arising--so long as energy becomes disordered in producing it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

on a point from an earlier post concerning metaphysical laws, there are many... law of identity, laws of logic, law of entrophy (einstein: “premier law of all of science” - eddington: “supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe"), etc.

I have concerns over these metaphysical laws you talk about so often - their validity and testability. Are these "laws" verified or simply "prophesized"?

Quote

David Hume argued with his empiricist principle that all knowledge involves either relations of ideas or matters of fact:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Quote

A.J. Ayer in "Language, Truth and Logic" using the verifiability theory of meaning concluded that metaphysical propositions were neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views

My point being that to debate with metaphysical proof versus scientific proof seems to me impossible. And it seems the conclusion drawn by acceptance of metaphysical laws is not one that can be tested or verified - it is thus only a claim.

Quote

i do have a question (not to argue, but for edification) concerning the theory of evolution... if my understanding is faulty here, i'm sure someone will correct me... am i correct that for this theory to be true inorganic atoms and molecules combined, more or less spontaneously, to form protein (and other even more complex molecules) and from these (adding a measure of time) even more complex beings were formed? and that this order from chaos all came together from its natural state? that dna formed in this manner?

Here, for example, you seem to be utilizing at least subconsciously your understanding of the metaphysical law of entropy to dismiss that order can come from chaos - when in the above post by Richard Carrier he showed that order requires an increase in entropy.

Looks to me more like an inaccurate generalization passed off as a law.

[Trumpace]

This space intentionally left blank.

[onoway]

Gerben42, on Jan 30 2009, 03:48 AM, said:

Of course there are medical treatments that work, other than "traditional medicine". Chinese medicine has been based on that what works rather than that what can be understood. Some things work even though we don't understand them, maybe in the future we will have an explanation why it works.

What should be actively eradicated are therapies that cannot work, or that are simply quackery.

A famous case was some self-proclaimed spritualist Jomanda who convinced a famous Dutch actress that she really just had an inflammation that she could heal, when in fact she had cancer. She is now facing charges, and personally I hope that she will be convicted.

a question: what happens when a professionally trained doctor misdiagnoses and the patient dies as a result? Are they also charged? If so, then I have no problem with your last statement. However, if this sort of punishment is only for people who have rightly or wrongly set themselve up outside standard medical parameters, then there is imo, a problem.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that the medical profession is very like a dogmatically religious group, they are NOT open to information coming to them from any direction except the ones they specify as worthy of consideration (read, from one of their own). Not only that, but they actively witchhunt anyone who tries to encroach however timidly on their turf. E.g. in at least one province in Canada, there is still a strong lobby from the medical profession against midwifery, maintaining it should be a criminal activity. Sooooo just who decides if a treatment has some validity? The people who have a vested interest in maintaining their monopoly? The people who synthesize a compound from a plant, patent it and charge lots of money for the result, then try to prevent people from being able to access the plant itself?

I read recently that there are now studies being done using Linus Pauling's protocol for using an injectable form of vitaminC for cancer. He was laughed at and dismissed as someone who was over the hill when he wrote about it, BUT to my understanding, the protocols used at the time to check his results, were entirely different than his, including using a different form of vitaminC. Was this science? Now...apparently...guess what? His protocol is showing the results he claimed. In the meantime, how many people could have been helped?

So the question remains, who decides if a treatment is valid or quackery?

[matmat]

I love how these threads never evolve...

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jan 30 2009, 09:16 PM, said:

Quote

on a point from an earlier post concerning metaphysical laws, there are many... law of identity, laws of logic, law of entrophy (einstein: “premier law of all of science” - eddington: “supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe"), etc.

I have concerns over these metaphysical laws you talk about so often - their validity and testability. Are these "laws" verified or simply "prophesized"?

Quote

David Hume argued with his empiricist principle that all knowledge involves either relations of ideas or matters of fact:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Quote

A.J. Ayer in "Language, Truth and Logic" using the verifiability theory of meaning concluded that metaphysical propositions were neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views

start smaller, winston... first start by asking whether or not non-material things even exist... that's what started this, imo... the weight of importance ascribed to this existence is at the root of the whole thing... what do you think?

Quote

My point being that to debate with metaphysical proof versus scientific proof seems to me impossible.  And it seems the conclusion drawn by acceptance of metaphysical laws is not one that can be tested or verified - it is thus only a claim.

Quote

i do have a question (not to argue, but for edification) concerning the theory of evolution... if my understanding is faulty here, i'm sure someone will correct me... am i correct that for this theory to be true inorganic atoms and molecules combined, more or less spontaneously, to form protein (and other even more complex molecules) and from these (adding a measure of time) even more complex beings were formed? and that this order from chaos all came together from its natural state? that dna formed in this manner?

Quote

Here, for example, you seem to be utilizing at least subconsciously your understanding of the metaphysical law of entropy to dismiss that order can come from chaos - when in the above post by Richard Carrier he showed that order requires an increase in entropy.

does carrier attempt a proof of what he says, or does he merely say it? btw winston, i can post many quotes from scientists, many of whom are nobel prize winners (although richard may refer to them as *crank* winners), with the opposite view... can i take it that you believe dna and rna came about as a result of increasing entrophy?

Quote

Perhaps I touched a nerve by asking you questions you cannot answer, except, as Josh has pointed out, with nonsense... words empty of content.

i don't think josh said my words were nonsense, although he might yet... the fact that you might not understand them doesn't mean they are nonsensical... i think any objective (i.e. someone who can pause her presuppositions) reader looking at your posts next to mine might have a different view as to "content"

Quote

Please identify for me where I have EVER claimed to have a 'superior intellect'.

"Theists hear of well-researched, solid facts and go into denial... yet the theists, whose entire thought processes operate under the constraints of cognitive dissonance..." when codo pointed out the openmindedness of your thoughts, you said "You merely prove that my generalization is accurate as far as you are concerned, and the irony is that, I suspect, you don't even see it." ... ironical, isn't it, that codo can't even see the accuracy of your generalizations

in another place, "... your arguments seem to be based on a remarkable degree of ignorance." ... unlike yours

"I started to try to write about your comical explications of massive, overnight or very short term mutations, impacting an entire species without exception, and then realized that I was (1) probably wasting my time and (2) better advised to suggest you read some books on the topic.. if you already have read them and still don't get it, nothing I write will help... "

if you have read the same books i have on the subject and *still* don't get it, well i just give up!!

"Oh, and claims, no matter how valid, and I accept yours without reservation, to scientific training does not make faith-based positions any more rational"

that quote seems to mean that regardless of the validity of a believing scientist's training, her arguments are irrational

"Ignorance can be bliss.. but express your ignorance publicly and don't be surprised if you get called on it."

since you have publicly stated your ignorance, and since i am the public-ignorance-stater expert, i'll call you on it

"Only someone with little knowledge of the evidence in support of evolution, or a wilfull refusal to accept the implications of such evidence, would argue that Evolution and Creationism are 'philosophies' that are both unproven or unprovable."

statements such as the above imply that those who (some of whom are far more learned than you or me) *have* read the "evidence," yet come away with a different view, would disagree with you only by refusing to accept that which is so starkly clear to you

"The only way to be a religious person is to accept that you are going to have faith.. and faith is the antithesis of thought. But I don't blame you for not seeing this... cognitive dissonance won't let you."

those of you of faith are incapable of thought - unlike those like me - it's that old cognitive dissonance you suffer from

"My rejection of the new testament, and all other religious tracts, is based on a lot of thinking, and a lot of reading ... I appreciate that you are young, and that you have been subject to religious conditioning that dulls the ability to think critically about religion."

those who have read the nt and have *not* rejected it haven't thought about it or haven't done (or haven't understood) the reading... and if you are religious, especially if you are young *and* religious, your ability to think critically is ipso facto dulled

"Are you serious? Or illiterate? ... But then, I didn't have to read it through a veil of wilful ignorance created by belief in superstition"

sigh... do those not even hint that you believe your reasoning powers are superior to those who disagree with you?

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Jan 30 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

I am always open to someone pointing out where I went wrong... are you?

I believe that this is the key to learning and motivates folks to state opinions forcefully and clearly.

Most of us hope that revealing our opinions to others will elicit refutations when our opinions are wrong. That process advances our knowledge. Science works similarly.

When I see posters being indirect, evasive, or obfuscatory, I automatically classify them (sorry, but that's the way I am) as people fearful of learning the truth about their ideas. To me, that's a sad way to live.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jan 31 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

btw winston, i can post many quotes from scientists, many of whom are nobel prize winners (although richard may refer to them as *crank* winners), with the opposite view... can i take it that you believe dna and rna came about as a result of increasing entrophy?

Jimmy, the fact that you can provide out of context quotes from Nobel prize winners doesn't mean that you understand what they're talking about:

For example:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system
The Earth is not a closed system

BTW, I don't recall referring to any Nobel Prize winner as a crank. I most certainly did call George P. Stravropoulos a crank. But, then again, he's hardly a Nobel Prize winner...

As far as I can tell, his total academic output was a letter to the editor which a wide variety of Creationists have been mis-citing for years.

[Trinidad]

As a physical chemist, I would like to clarify a few things. My apologies for a long post.

The second law of thermodynamics (the one about entropy) states that:

An isolated system will strive to increase its entropy. For non scientists, in many cases (but not all), it is reasonable to translate entropy with 'disorder' or 'chaos'. Translated to organic chemistry, this pretty much means that in an isolated system it is impossible to create complex molecules (e.g. DNA) from simple ones.

Why did I write 'an isolated system' in italics? Because it is the crucial part of the second law of thermodynamics. An isolated system is a system where there is no energy (or mass) added or removed.

Every chemist knows that most reactions can be carried out "from left to right" and "from right to left". You can burn fuel in a reaction with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water. In this reaction, the entropy increases. Perfect!

But you can also let carbon dioxide react with water to form fuel and oxygen. Plants do it "all the time". In this reaction the entropy decreases. What happened to the second law of thermodynamics?

Now, wait a minute. Do plants do that all the time? No! They only do it at day time. After all, this process uses light as an energy source for this reaction. In other words: The plant, the soil, the oxygen, carbon dioxide and water do not form an isolated system. Energy from the sun is added to it.

Similarly, the formation of life didn't take place in an isolated system. Evolution doesn't take place in an isolated system either. This means that it is entirely possible to decrease entropy, just like the plants are doing (at day time). Since the formation of life and evolution are processes that do not take place in an isolated system, entropy can decrease. Therefore, the evolution theory and current scientific theories are not contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. And therefore, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't belong in the evolution debate.

I am no expert on the field of the origin of life, but I know that there are various ideas on how life originated on earth. About 10 years ago, scientists were able to make simple organic structures from basic inorganic matter such as carbon dioxide, ammonia and water with (artificial) lightning as an energy source. Currently, the more accepted idea seems to be (again, I am no expert in this field) that the external energy source that created life may have been vulcanic activity at the bottom of the ocean. There are other ideas around. They all have in common that there is an external source of energy. And by all means, it is entirely possible that God (or another Divine Creator) is the "external source of energy".

It is much easier to explain evolution than the origin of life. We see that evolution happens today. We realize that energy is needed (to account for the decrease in entropy!) and we realize where it can come from (e.g. sunlight). The energy source that we can observe every day (when it is not too cloudy and as long as we live between the arctic and antarctic circles ) is enough explanation why evolution is possible. There is no need to search for a more complicated explanation.

Scientists will look for the simplest explanations for observations. In my opinion, it is the most important law of science that the simplest explanation is the most plausible one. (Apparently here I disagree with Einstein since he supposedly thought the second law was the most important one. I would have never dreamt that I would ever write that I would disagree with Einstein. ) As long as simple explanations work, scientists will not accept more complicated explanations. And simple explanations are focused around phenomena that we can observe. The nice thing is that we can test these simple explanations. As long as the explanations are consistent with the observations, we will trust these explanations more and more. In that way, explanations evolve into theories. Theories are explanations that, so far, have stood the test of time. When an explanation is not consistent with the observations, the explanation is discarded or adapted.

When it comes to explaining the origin of life on earth, scientists will try to explain it with the simplest explanations possible. Remember that simple explanations need to be focused around phenomena that we can observe. We know that there is lightning. Lightning could be the energy source for the origin of life. We know that there is vulcanic activity on Earth. It could be the energy source for the origin of life. Apparently, scientists have determined that it will be easier to create life from vulcanic activity than from lightning, which makes it the more accepted scientific idea.

Nobody knows whether there is a God (or Divine Creator). Many people believe there is one and I do respect that. As I have said above and any scientist will say, it is entirely possible that God created life on earth. There is no evidence that He didn't create life (for the simple reason that God is not observable).

However, the vast majority of scientists will say that the explanation that God created life is (much) less plausible than the explanation from vulcanic activity, lightning or others. The reason for that is simple. We have observed vulcanic activity and lightning and we know that they are a source of energy. We have not observed God.

I hope this clarifies the scientific way of thinking and reasoning. (Keep explanations simple, based on observables and testable.)

And I hope this clarifies why the second law of thermodynamics should not be (mis-)used in the debate around the origin of life or evolution. (Because, according to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy can decrease when the system is not isolated. And the biosphere is not an isolated system.)

Rik

[hotShot]

Great post Rik!

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a close system
The Earth is not a closed system

richard, i *know* that... it still, unless someone shows differently, doesn't explain to me how non-living matter can transform into organic matter, without some guiding force... even adding energy from outside doesn't seem to give an answer to that... i know that some evolutionists try to keep the origin of life distinct from evolution, but that makes no sense to me... how can there be evolution if there is nothing to evolve from?

as far as entropy itself is concerned, it's true that outside agents can cause a decrease on individual systems, but not on the whole - on the whole (whether that is the environment or something else) there is always an increase

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 1 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 31 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a close system
The Earth is not a closed system

richard, i *know* that... it still, unless someone shows differently, doesn't explain to me how non-living matter can transform into organic matter, without some guiding force... even adding energy from outside doesn't seem to give an answer to that... i know that some evolutionists try to keep the origin of life distinct from evolution, but that makes no sense to me... how can there be evolution if there is nothing to evolve from?

as far as entropy itself is concerned, it's true that outside agents can cause a decrease on individual systems, but not on the whole - on the whole (whether that is the environment or something else) there is always an increase

Comment 1: If you *know* the difference between open and closed systems, why do you bother posting arguments that ignore this same distinction?

Comment 2: We are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis

I know that I shouldn't be surprised that you're desperately attempting to muddle the conversation. Still, its disappointing...