Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

Unless you guys have read and understood Brooks' and Wiley's Evolution by Entropy (and you haven't), you haven't a clue. You don't even sound good.

Please fall back and regroup.

Hey its all hat and no cattle

good too see your still using Deep Heet on your Hemorrhoids

In other words, you are talking out your ass and don't have a clue. Par for the course here.

entropy can also occur in open systems.

well belly up to the bar cowboy, or tee off or something

Nobody suggested otherwise.

Leroy,

Perhaps you could help me here. At first glance, one of their articles includes a myriad of esoteric external references..... many of which are based in theory..... repeat.... theory....and then along the way, another conglomeration of mathematical formulas are introduced.

I could not follow it nor comprehend it..... apparently you can.

So, can you shed some light on this?



Here is my take on it, but I would like to hear yours...

From what I have read about this, it can be summarized as mathematical and theoretical demonstration that lower order systems can result in higher order systems. Ok, that is easy to understand.

Then, finally, one article gave an example....sperm to egg to embryo..... Wow!

shouldn't let this die, it was almost to combining thermo, quantum mechanics, and information theory

I believe this is attributed to Duane BigEagle:




My Grandfather Was a Quantum Physicist

I can see him now
smiling
in full dance costume
in front of the roundhouse
on a sunny afternoon.

Scientists have finally discovered
that the intimate details
of our lives
are influenced by things
beyond the stars
and beyond time.

My grandfather knew this


Duane BigEagle’s grandfather was really smart

November 26, 2002 By Chris Corrigan Uncategorized One Comment

Issues in American Indian Research

Only from scientists who willfully reject the truth of radiometric dating.

Entropy was discovered in an open system. In case you didn't know it the sun is running down also. That's because the entire universe is running down. The Bible mentioned that thousands of years ago.

Really? Like practically all the physicists on the planet? Only Creationists having the answers?

You don't seem to understand. Most creationists believe in The Creator and are convinced they will stand before Him in judgement. Therefore they tend to be a lot more careful in their bold proclamations. They have facts to back their claim whether the evolutionists accept them or not.

Like I asked in the past. Can you come up with any Ph.D creationists who became evolutionists after they earned their degree. I can come up with Ph.D evolutionists who became creationists after they earned their degree and started lab and or field research.

Your question was silly the first time you asked it, and nothing has changed since. The vast majority of scientists who work in the field can see the evidence for evolution. Creationism has no evidence. If someone switches to creationism, it is for private reasons...most likely credulity: how can such complexity emerge spontaneously....which is a fallacious assumption.

Your lack of concern for the truth is what is silly. The reason they switched is the overwhelming facts could no longer be ignored. Occasionally they get ridiculed by their former colleagues. Some times they loose their jobs.




I don't understand. What are you trying to communicate here? Are you saying complexity can not emerge spontaneously? I agree if that is what you are saying. Everything that happens needs and adequate cause; which is always greater than the results.

Truth?

Who switched? What percentage? Can you give an actual list and percentage of scientists who have rejected evolution in favour of creationism?

Ringman,

Some comments....some opinions....

From an article read quite some time ago, quoted as best I can remember:

“The science is what the science is; dependent upon the data and the interpretation of the data. When the data changes and when interpretative techniques change, the “science” will change.”

Makes sense.... at one time the best scientific minds of the day concluded the earth was 40,000,000 years old. Today, it is generally accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earth did not change, the data and interpretive techniques changed. One would assume that 100 years from now, many ideas that are today held to be incontrovertible will be long since discarded.

Having said that, you are entirely correct to be suspicious of radiometric dating. But, the science is what it is and that is what is generally accepted.

But, there are many spectacularly wrong dates provided by both the data and data interpretation techniques in today’s world.

I once took a course in geophysics. Professor was very highly regarded. I was green as grass and completely enamored about the many new dating techniques he was talking about. Then one day he brought a rock into the class and asked us what we thought it was and how we would go about establishing a date of formation for rock. Great fun and the class was fully engaged in the discussion. As the discussion was winding down, he started to point out all the complexities involved in radiometric dating. He told us that it is virtually impossible to accurately date an individual rock like he had on his desk. He said that we surely could subject the rock to all kinds of dating techniques but all we would really have was “data points.” He said one must know where the rock came from, the related rock formations and then pick the best technique based on the rock chemistry....so on and so forth. His point was that you can’t subject the rock to a simple test and expect an accurate answer.

The problem, as he explained it, is that radiometric dating was as much an interpretive art as it was science. He noted the dates provided might vary immensely based on the input assumptions about rock chemistry. A good example are many of the volcanic flows coming out in the Hawaiian volcanoes. We have flows that we know are less than 200 years old but have been age dated as 200 million years. Same goes for assumptions in the potassium-argon method. One has to make an assumption of how much K-Ar deterioration happened .... before..... the rock solidified ... or whether or not it had gone through numerous cycles of partial melting. It seems often, simplifying assumptions are made..... maybe to obtain repeatable data results. Change the assumptions and you will “change the date.”.....perhaps significantly.

Long winded, but the science is what it is and it is a mistake to assume that radiometric dates are as accurate as the arithmetic associated with the dating technique indicates.

I think radiometric dating techniques have a long way to go. Same with the Big Bang theory. Wouldn’t surprise me if some new theory supplants it.

Science is what it is, but certainly has limitations and certainly does not provide all the answers.

I'm saying that complex systems can and do form on the basis of physics, chemistry, energy input, etc, how these systems form being determined by composition and the prevailing states and conditions, be it stars, galaxies , planets, moons, comets, organic chemistry, weather patterns...google for examples if you are not sure.

From this are you expecting me to believe a result can be greater than its cause?

what seems complex on one scale is not on another. similarities of scale in non-linear dynamics are good examples, Mandelbrot and Julia sets. complexity on the planet is small compared to the universe.

Entropy has properties, information which is one of the them is a property of the observer, not the system.

numbers not being what you would expect, gets into the 4th, 5th law of thermo, but has come along ways (as mentioned above on advancement of scientific method).

as quantum physics gains more insight expect, expect changes in the outlook of absolute zero, especially from the entropy of information

yes the result can certainly be greater the parts

a good book in this area if interested is Information and Self- Organization by H. Haken an early laser physicist.
and Coding and InformationTheory from Springers Grad. text in Math.