The Age-old Argument

[Tekki]

How can creation be the easy way out? Even when presented with thousands of facts, evolutionists won't even consider, because if they admit there is a higher power, then they admit they are responsible to something else. They admit that they can do wrong. If there is no higher being, then they are their own gods, they decide right and wrong. This is why our society's morality is failing. If there is no God, then there is no Sin. If there is no Sin, then you decide what's right and wrong. Sounds appealing? It should, but it is only the outside of the deal. You will never be happy doing wrong. But enough of that. How do you explain away that evolution violates the first two laws of thermodynamics, which have been definitely proven? The first law of thermodynamics is known as the Law of Energy Conservation. It states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created nor destroyed. This law teaches that the universe did not create itself. This scientific fact is in direct contradiction with the basic concept of naturalistic, innovative evolution. The present structure of the universe is one of conservation, not innovation as required by the theory of evolution.

The second law of thermodynamics states that every system left to its own devices tends to move from order to disorder. In other words, the universe is proceeding in a downward, degenerating direction of decreasing organization. Material possessions deteriorate and all living organisms eventually return to dust, a state of complete disorder. Given enough time, all of the energy and the universe wil have died what is commonly referred to as a heat-death. A process(evolution) that results in a more orderedc and complex product, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, might be possible but would necessarily be very limited, rare, and temporary in effect. But evolution requires billions of years of constant violations of the second law to be considered even remotely feasible. Thus, we find that the second law of thermodynamics renders the theory of evolution not only statistically highly improbable, but virtually impossible. Also, have you ever considered the actual mathematical probability of all of the life on earth and the uiniverse itself coming about like this? The chance of developing a very simple life-form system of 200 integrated parts(considered an incredibly simple organism) is 1 in 200! or it can be written as 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This can also be written as 10 to the 375th power. And this is only the chance of ONE 200-part system developing ONCE. What if attempts are repeatedly made for basic, simple life to evolve? Assuming that none of the first trial groups work, let's continue trying over and over again at the generous rate of 1 billion trials per second, furthermore, to give us every possible advantage, let us keep trying for 30 billion years since this is the presumed age of the universe. Even after all this, the maximum number of attempts that could be made is still only 10 to the 104th power, far to few attempts to develope one working life form. In fact, NASA research has shown that the smallest known organism that is living is made up of at least 400 linked amino acids. The possibility of even the simplest protein molecule evolving is 1 in 10 to the 450th power. The probability of the smallest and simplest self-replicating entity evolving is 1 in 10 to the 167,626th power. How can something as complex as the eye, brain stem, or nervous system evolve in the face of odds exponentially greater?


------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

Edit: To fix the zeroes...they messed up the page.

[This message has been edited by CornMaster (edited April 22, 2001).]

 

[CornMaster]

So Tekki.......

Your saying that because it's very unlikely that life can/will evolve, that there must be a higher power? Yeah.....whatever.

(If I misunderstood....I apoligze.)

And in the second law of Thermodynamic's order to chaos is only in an expanding universe.....once the universe starts contracting then it will go from chaos to disorder and down will be up, black will be white, etc

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Tekki,

your maths is wrong your science is wrong and your logic is wrong.

But forget all that just now (I have to go out soon and so I don't have time to give a complete answer, but I will later), tell me what is the relationship between the idea that some entity created the universe and the rules of social morality? Why does the creator have to give a fig about morailty? Why could "he/she/it" not simply have created the universe and then gone off somewhere else?

By the way, you seem to be suggesting that the motive for thinking up evolution was to be able to deny responsibility. Is that your definition of science and scientists?

 

[Tekki]

Penvzila: The statement you typed in is one of the most narrowminded, prejiduced statements I have seen in a long time. I come here expecting to be involved in a civilized, open-minded debate. Everyone was very open-minded about things on both sides until your very inappropriate comment. All the others should be embarrassed at the actions of one of your fellow evolutionists. To refer to all of Christianity for things t hat those proclaming to be Christians have done and all the past churches in the past and then to associate me with all acts committed in the name of God is extreme discrimination, stereotyping, and prejudice. To say that all of Christianity was responsible for Catholic repression and opression of peoples(including people whose then considered radical ideas i agree with) during the dark and middle ages is proposterous and an intolerant comment. To also say that I stand for certain massacres such as those performed by the Crusaders is also a statement of bigotry. In fact, your comment was in itself very hypocritical when you consider that often Chrisitan ideals are repressed by evolutionists and also, masssacres and destruction has been performed by every culture in history. It would be prudent of you to consider the hypocrisy of further statements before you embarrass your collegues again.

algernon: My math is correct. If you wish, I will give you my sources of the multiple experiments and calculations that i got my information from. To say my science is wrong is to say that the very physical sciences are wrong. I only had true proven scientific information in my posts. I would also like for you to say WHERE my logic is wrong, since I have evaluated it and have found no fault in it. Please analyze your own posts for logic before you criticize mine.

cornmaster: I thank you for admitting that you might have misunderstood, although i don't know how. I am not looking from your perspective so I will most likely not see where the confusion is. If we both take the same information differently, then of course there will be no convincing either way. I would, however, like for you to explain your sources, and the general reason why a proven law of science can be reversed?

All: Please try to eliminate name-calling and baseless criticism. I am simply trying to have an open-minded debate. I have read and considered your arguments, and I have responded as I saw fit(with God's help of course

) I would rather not have a mudslinging competition over who is intolerant and whose logic is wrong, since both of those are generally viewed as perspectives, and not proven facts.

------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Tekki:
cornmaster: I thank you for admitting that you might have misunderstood, although i don't know how. I am not looking from your perspective so I will most likely not see where the confusion is. If we both take the same information differently, then of course there will be no convincing either way. I would, however, like for you to explain your sources, and the general reason why a proven law of science can be reversed?

But was I right about what I thought you said?

How do I know that the laws of Physics will be reversed when the universe contracts??? I was told in science class. Chemistry actually.......of course it's just a theory....I haven't seen the universe contract, in oh......5 billion years.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[Tekki]

Well, in a way you were right. Because of the huge statistical improbability of any life evolving once, i can't believe that billions of common evolutions would take place, and that female and male organisms would be developed, and I can't believe that all the evolutions would be so complex, when, as you can see, it is so difficult to evolve the simplest things. But I suppose, you do sort of get the idea...it's hard to imagine that earth is the perfectly designed planet to support life in the perfect solar system, the right distance from the sun, the right rotational speed, the right atmosphere, amazing plant and animal designs...etc. is not planned by a superior being. Well, lots of things are wrong in science class. They used to say tomatoes were poisonous. They used to say every explosive material contained some word starting with a p that was a magic exploding substance. Now they say the earth is billions of years old, when I can prove it cannot be older than 10,000 years. Science classes have been wrong. I don't see any reason for the universe to contract...if there was a gravity well strong enough at the center of the universe, to pull all matter back towards itself, it would not have let matter escape it in the first place. However, I do see your point, if the universe DID contract, it might reverse the laws of physics...however if it DID reverse the laws of physics...we wouldn't have any argument, because if the law of gravity was reversed... well, you get the idea. I'm just glad I got a sensible answer. I dislike being called a bigot by a hypocrite.

------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[FearlessLeader2]

As a sincere doubter of evolution, I would add something to Tekki's arguments, but they actually stand on their own quite nicely. This is rather easy to accomplish, as absolutely nothing of substance has been brought to bear against them. I have not read anything from the evolutionists on this forum yet that cannot be described as rhetoric or evasion, with the exception of circular logic and associative argument.(He is a Christian, and some Christians in the past did bad things, so he is wrong. I mean come on...)

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the only reason people show such faith in evolution is because it is how they were brought up.

 

[stormerne]

Originally posted by penvzila:
I wasn't going to post this, but I agree with CornMaster. Not only am i an atheist, I am an antitheist. Christianity represents repression, opression, discrimination, destrucion and massacres. I'll go into more detail if anyone cares to retort.

I venture to suggest penvzila that you are NOT an antitheist. Instead I suggest you are an antiMONOtheist. If you look at the histories of world monotheistic religions, of which Christianity is indeed one, you will find that they can indeed be accused of the faults you cite. However, if you do the same research on polytheistic religions you will find quite different results. This is not to say that polytheistic societies are simply peace-loving - they're not any more than anyone else. But they don't go forcibly converting the rest of the world at sword point and they have much greater tolerance for the beliefs of others.



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[GenghisK]

I'd just like to add a notice. If we cannot deny that Christians had done mistakes in the past (the Inquisition...) don't forget that nowadays the opposite happens. Now it's non Christians who "torture" Christian people. By doing unappropriate comments. Perhaps you think it's only words but it's still an aggression though... And concerning the Pope, can you just imagine the amount of people who keep on shouting on him, concerning several Christian faith? Isn't that a "modern" form of repression against Christians?

But anyway, I don't think the "atheist" word means something. Because if you don't believe in one God, you believe in the non-existence of God. So you believe anyway... Right?

------------------
Genghis K.

[This message has been edited by GenghisK (edited April 23, 2001).]

 

[Tekki]

Yay, I'm not alone! Ok, now that that's over, I'd like to point out just how opressive, repressive, discriminating, and destructive polytheistic religions are(some) and have been(just bout all). Hindu is VERY discriminating against women. Men can do just about anything they want, such as beat their wives, and their wives must just submit. And, Hindu believers have persecuted many other people. So have just about every religion in the world at one time. However, the most persecuted people in the world, are in this order: Jews and Christians. Name one other group more heavily persecuted throughout history and in the present times. Although those claiming to be Christian have persecuted from time to time, I completely disagree with their actions(i.e., the Church of the Dark Ages, Middle Ages) And most Christians are amazingly tolerant. We love the people, hate the actions. We don't say that you should not be able to believe what you want. We don't say that it's a complete fact that all unsaved people are going to the Lake of Fire, and that all saved people are going to Heaven, we just believe it's 100% and completely true. We don't try to impose our beliefs on other people. We don't say that the idea of evolution should be outlawed, we just say that's it's an incorrect hypothesis, and that it should be re-evaluted for use in schools. I don't enjoy being called intolerant when I'll agree that some of your ideas are possible, IF they did happen, which I believe they won't/didn't.

------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[stormerne]

Good post Tekki! I don't agree with you, but some thoughtful stuff nevertheless.

When I replied to penvzila's post about repression, oppression, discrimination and destruction, I was separating out the religious oppression etc from the non-religious. To say that believers of faith X "have persecuted many other people" in the ways you used as examples wasn't really my point. Yes of course they do. It happens round the world. What I was saying was that I don't believe that followers of polytheistic religions often use their religions as an excuse for those acts of oppression. They may still oppress, but the fundamentalist zeal that characterises some of modern day Islam and certainly dark age and mediaeval Christianity is missing and not available for use as a justification. It is very much a characteristic however of monotheistic faiths.

When the Roman Empire expanded, its polytheistic society absorbed the local deities and took them on as its own. Northern Europe was finally converted from polytheistic Heathenry to Christianity largely at swordpoint. The heathens themselves were not interested in proselytising, only in plunder or land grabbing. When heathen King Raedwald of Anglia (he who was probably buried at Sutton Hoo) received Christian missionaries he offered their god a place alongside his own gods at the altar. For some reason the missionaries weren't too happy with that! His subsequent "conversion" was an act of political expediency.

Some modern Christians take a different approach than their historical forebears. They are tolerant and work with heathens like me in Interfaith groups. But their modern attitudes cannot sever them from their history and it's debatable whether they are in the majority.

But this is all by and by. My main point is that the philosophical schism between evolutionists and creationists is completely unnecessary and is a waste of opportunity. The two can coexist though not necessarily in their simplest forms. My experience with deities is that they can act as creators though I don't go for the all in one creation by a single deity. Similarly I ackowledge evolutionary doctrines but I still allow for the interventions of deities. Both creationism and evolution tools for thinking, but when they claim to be mutually exclusive I believe their usefulness congeals and is no more.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

 

[Leowind]

First of all, where else but here could such a diverse group of people debate such a hot topic with the degree of respect and cordiality we've seen? Most other places this would have devolved into a shouting match long ago. Kudo to CivFanatics.

to reply to Algernon, Are you a parent? When you "create" a child, you naturally care about how that child grows up and learns to behave. You try to teach that child your own moral code. Apply the analogy to a Creator, and you can see why a Creating God would be interested in a particular moral code for His/Her/Its people. Of course, if you *assume* that people made up the Creator, then your question, and the implicit criticism, becomes valid.

 

[Leowind]

Sorry to post twice in a row

, but was thinking about Algernon pondlife's statement:

Of one thing I am sure: the assertion that there must be a creator is false. If it were true, how could you explain the creation of the creator?

I explain the creation of a Creator as easily as I explain the existence of a Universe that has always existed. No matter what your belief system, there is the unaswerable mystery of what existed before, and what existed before that, and before that, etc... If you can accept the possibility of a Universe that simply exists and has always existed and was not formed out of anything (I'm not talking about the Big Bang; that is simply the implosion of the previous Universe, so does not really provide a starting point) then you must allow the possibility of a Creator that simply exists and has always existed. They both exist (or not) in their own right, and almost by definition can have no "beginning."
An idea I've had floating around in my head that is far from thought through completely involves the very concepts of "time" and a "beginning." To follow the science of Big Bang theory, time itself is a by-product, just as are energy and matter, of the initial explosion of the Universe, so that before the "Big Bang," there was no time. A Creator who started the Big Bang is not bound by concepts such as "before" and "after," because they have no meaning when time does not exist. This would help explain the Christian concept of a God "outside" of time. Like I said, this is not a complete thought yet, and I would welcome anyone's comments.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Hey you're all going too fast for me. I promised Tekki I would address his main arguments and I will. But it takes a little time to get it together and I don't have so much free time right now. Besides I fear my response will amount to 2000 words or more and I'm worried about getting into that sort of thing in the forum (TH any comments or suggestions?). Also I get a lot of crashes so I'm going to do it first in a text editor with saves.

So just some side issues right now and maybe in a couple of hours or tomorrow if I get tired (don't forgrt I'm on London time) I'll get the whole thing together.

from GenghisK
you believe in the non-existence of God. So you believe anyway... Right?

Not believing or accepting something is not the same kind of situation as believing something. It relates logically to the old joke (not necessarily funny): "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I.e. rejecting a proposition is not the same process as accepting it, but rather is the counter to the proposal. We also have to be careful of semantic traps to do with the meaning of the verb believe in this discussion.

from Leowind
When you "create" a child, you naturally care about how that child grows up and learns to behave.

first: yes it is possible that the analogy is correct but I cannot see how it is an essential requisite of the "creator" theory. Is it not just an assumption?

second: (by the way I have three children, all now adult) parents (and not just human parents) are concerned to see that their children can cope with the environment they have brought them into. Part of this in humans is a social morality (or moral code if you like) to enable effective interaction with other people. In other words it is not an abstract moral code. If a creator was behaving analogously, then it would be to prepare people for successful behaviour in some environment the creator was intending to place them in. This is the kind of thing some religions, including Christianity, tackle as some sort of afterlife concept. But my question comes before we get to that point, otherwise the argument is circular.

third: (and I expect you are waiting for this) a parent's behaviour towards its children is in part a behavioural inheritance in the genes as a survival strategy for the species and it varies greatly between species. I know that this is dangerous ground, but let me emphasise that the words are a retrospective description of what happens rather than an implied intention in the genes. By that I mean that it is the result of an evolutionary process in which a population that had an inclination towards such teaching and nurturing survived and expanded successfully at some time in the past.

from Leowind
I explain the creation of a Creator as easily as I explain the existence of a Universe that has always existed.

That is precisely my point. The existence of the universe is not evidence for the existence of a creator because the argument is infinitely extensible (if something as complex as the universe has to have had a creator then something as complex as that creator has to have had a creator also). Note that I do not say it is evidence against the existence of a creator, just that it is not necessary.

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited April 23, 2001).]

 

[Tekki]

In reality, the verb "create" shouldn't even be feasibly used when applied to any actions we take. Since by the First Law of Thermodynamics energy can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means. So, we know that there is no living being on earth that can truly create matter. What is the only way a being would be able to create something? If a being is self-existent(not having been created by anything), then wouldn't it have the power to do anything, including create? For if you are self-existent, then you have the power to exist back to infinity. If you can exist without a beginning, then you certainly have great power, we know the power that humans can design, imagine the power if you had not been created! This argument, I admit, IS partially on assumed information, however, it is definitely possible, as is Cornmaster's argument about a contracting universe.

------------------
The protagonist is trying very, very hard to think very clearly about trying not to think about something else. Read it again

 

[willemvanoranje]

No comments. It's too dangerous to talk about my opinion on this subject. I just wanna say Evolution is a nice theory, and man couldn't have done this without help. (God, aliens? Who knows...)

------------------
Concordia res parvae cres****.

 

[Leowind]

Algernon, definitely hear you on the time crunch. All this hard thinking takes its toll

I'm still trying to wade through Johan511's consciousness thread to formulate a response. To respond to what you've written, however:
A moral code (caring parent analogy) is NOT a prerequisite for a *theory* of a Creator. but herein lies a major problem in these sorts of discussions. A Christian (or most any other religious advocate) is not formulating a theory about the Universe, but trying to understand and explain what they consider revelation of the Truth. They are not trying to figure it out, but explaining reality as it has been told them, in their thinking. My analogy of the caring parent was only meant to show how a Creator *could* have a moral code in mind, not that such a moral code was required. (Indeed some throughout history have postulated such a Creator: created then left us to our own devices.) For the Christian, to say that a moral code is not a requirement for a Creator-theory is entirely irrelevent, because the Creator has revealed Himself, and indeed has a moral code in mind. To stretch the analogy a bit further, the child does not wonder about the possibility of a parent that requires no moral code because mom/dad is at this moment sending him to his room for breaking the moral code they are in reality requiring. (Not to imply that God only punishes; just an example

)

If a creator was behaving analogously, then it would be to prepare people for successful behaviour in some environment the creator was intending to place them in.

Exactly, and the environment the Creator is preparing us to deal with is the very environment we find ourselves in. I don't see this as a problem.

As for your third point, I think we're sliding into the realm of free will vs. biological "fate." The "social evolution" theory you suggest is entirely possible, and almost certainly true to some extent. The question is to what extent. Are we *entirely* the result of our genes/environment, or are we as humans endowed with the ability to freely choose actions that run counter to our genetics and/or environment?

Enough rambling for today. I've got to actually get some work done sometime.
peace, Leowind

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

First of all let's establish the ground whereon we stand, Tekki. Now we are both wanting an open-minded discussion. But that does not mean that we seriously expect to find our views reversed in either case. It just means that we will take premises seriously and address them seriously.

As to motive, I don't know what yours is but mine is probably a wish to sharpen my thinking on this subject, the appeal of putting my ideas in front of an audience and an enjoyment of debating.

At the end I want us still to be "friends in civ" and so there is no intention of making personal attacks and if in the heat of everything such appears to happen we should simply defuse it and get back to real points.
By the way people who support points I make or views I express (such as Penvzila) are not necessarily colleagues and the only way they can embarrass me by their actions is if they let civfanatics down. There may be two sides to the debate but we are not teams. And if I wanted to be offended it would be by being accused (FearlessLreader2) of rhetoric, evasion and circular logic for the few clear (I thought) and relevant points that I have made so far.

Now, an apology. In a rush to get a marker down for this I inadvertently accused you of wrong arithmetic. In fact I have not checked your arithmetic and have no reason to doubt it. (what I was thinking about when I said it will become clear later). In any event I don't think the actual data on probability is very relevant since we cannot compare the two sides by this means. What is the probability that a creator exists? Well, either it does or it does not. So fifty-fifty?

. In fact we have no information about the conditions necessary for there to have been a creator so we cannot establish a probability.

Okay let's get to it.

<u>First Law of Thermodynamics:</u>

No question here. This is well established scientific theory. Although not strictly speaking proven, it is well substantiated by experiment and observation in a wide range of conditions. Just as an aside I have recently seen some stuff that suggests that there may be circumstances in which it appears to be invalid, but they do not impinge on our subject. However there is no evidence to support the idea that it is valid during the creation of the universe, however that happened.
It is commonly considered that the laws of everyday physics are unlikely to apply to the first moments in the existence of the universe and it is recognized that prior to that we have absolutely no information on the subject. In fact I think that physicists are able to argue that these everyday laws cannot have been valid in such extreme circumstances.

all quotes from Tekki unless otherwise specified
This scientific fact is in direct contradiction with the basic concept of naturalistic, innovative evolution.

I do not understand this statement. The process of evolution does not require the creation of matter. It uses the materials available and is essentially the outcome of the various processes of reproduction. So the first law of thermodynamics is a red herring.

<u>The Second Law of Thermodynamics</u>

No one has ever claimed that the existence of life is somehow going to reverse the direction of the universe. The billions of years involved make not the slightest difference to the long term. Stars are dying and stars are being created right now and have been for a very long time. There are generally considered to be two possible eventualities for the universe. Either it will continue to expand until all the material that is used in stars is burned up and useless; all will be dark (us included). Or, if it is sufficiently dense, the expansion will be reversed and it will come back together into some kind of super black hole or something. In this case it will not have disintegrated into chaos but it may, as some people speculate, turn into another "big bang" and start all over again. To me this is a cosy infinite iteration theory, but it is essentially just informed speculation and I'm not going to defend it.

By the way the idea (CornMaster) that the laws of physics will be reversed when the universe begins to contract is pure science fiction (q.v. "The Counter-Clock World" by PhilipKDick). It is a bit like saying that if you throw a ball in the air, the rules governing its behaviour suddenly change when it reaches its highest point and begins to fall.

All that is needed to get life started is the energy and the kind of materials spewed out by a star and some coincidence of environmental factors. But that leads on to your statistics.

Your generous gift of 1 billion times a second for thirty billion years is a little parsimonious. (This is where in my haste I alluded to your faulty arithmetic, whereas not knowing the size of the universe is nothing to do with arithmetic. Apologies.) Since the universe has billions of galaxies (someone once coined the phrase "galaxies like grains of sand") and galaxies have billions of stars, you can see that 1 billion times a second amounts to perhaps once a year (I'm going to chicken out of looking up actual data and doing actual arithmetic except where it becomes critical to the argument) on any planet.

Now, you can trim that down a hundred fold or a billion fold if you like by allowing some subset of stars to have candidate planets, but you have to multiply it up again when you allow that the kind of pre-conditions for the origins of life is some kind of chemical soup (notionally) bubbling away actively probably on a planet's surface. Even if you say this "soup" consists of a fraction of the liquid volume of, say, Loch Lomond, you have to be talking about hundreds or thousands or more reactions a second wherever the pre-conditions do exist.

But that does not get us very far because the emergence of life is still some probability ratio and without deeper investigation I can't tell you how low or high that might be. There is a body of work that has considered all this (it is, after all, part of the justification for SETI), but I'm not familiar with it except at the level of the general discussion. I understand that there is no consensus on the model and that some scientists consider that there is a high likelihood of there being life in a large number of places in the galaxy, never mind the rest of the universe, while others think the chances much slimmer.

But none of that really matters because if it is possible then it can have happened, no matter how small the probability.

However your model of random conjunctions of two hundred components is not a good description of the process. Life did not come about because suddenly, by chance two hundred components were mixed together in exactly the right way at exactly the right temperature and pressure. Frankly that sounds a bit incredible to me too.

The useful definition of what constitutes life in this context (the two hundred component, or even the four hundred component (I don't mind) model is of a successfully self-replicating organism. That is why your source insists on this minimum level of complexity. What happens before that is that there are less complex organisms that behave and interact with insufficient stability to reproduce their own likeness. But these organisms (if you prefer, think of them as complex chemicals that are frequently volatile) often react in ways that look like reproduction but the outcome is unlike the "parent".

So we never have this massive exercise of trying out every single combination of components. Many relationships are simply inert and many potential combinations are symmetrical. We are still talking about massive numbers of course and only every now and then will something pop up which is stable. Even then most times the environment will fight back and the proto-life will be snuffed out by other rampaging bits of biochemistry. On the other hand, there are potentially a large number of basic forms that life can take (it is generally considered that all that is needed is Hydrogen and Oxygen, say H2O, and an element willing to combine in complex ways - Carbon will do and a mix of some less fundamentally essential elements).

After some stable, self-replicating entity has arrived, probably consuming other stuff in the "soup" as material for its reproduction process, then you are at the root of the evolutionary tree.

I think I've said enough just now. I know you will want to query some of my points and probably raise some other objections at a fundamental level, but the laws of thermodynamics are absolutely irrelevant in this context (save only that, like all other physical laws the do apply to everything that happens within there sphere of validity).

I have pieced together my points relying on my memory and have not gone back to check any details. However if you want me to present a more detailed account of the process of evolution, I would be happy to do so. It might take a week or two because much of what I understand is derived from wide reading and I have no simple index that will take me into the appropriate texts when I need to clarify my thinking.

I would like to suggest, not necessarily in the context of this debate, that you (and anyone else who takes this subject seriously) should read some of the easily accessible material that describes what scientists regard as the process of evolution. Works by the likes of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, I can vouch from personal experience, provide excellent and relatively non-technical descriptions of the processes involved. By all means also read commentaries on them by people you consider sympathetic to your position, but read what they say in there own terms so that you can judge for yourself.

By the way, you will find areas of disagreement between these writers. Some opponents of evolution jump gleefully on these points of discord and claim that it invalidates the "scientific" basis. That is a trivial and childish approach and is no more legitimate than suggesting that there can be no god because of all the disagreement between various religions and factions within religions. And that is plainly absurd.

There is one point you made in an earlier post that I take exception to. It is not only wrong-headed but also insulting to suggest that proponents of evolution (as you would perceive them) take their position out of motives of greed or power or even out of opposition to religion. They are scientists and as a body that means that they observe and think and experiment and make predictions. And when a set of predictions works out consistently then they begin to gain confidence that they now understand something about the world better than they used to.

Of course you will find disreputable and venal people practising science and you will find people with closed minds and you will find people distorting science for their own ends. That is human nature and you will find the same thing occurring amongst people who purport to be very religious. In neither case does it detract from the sincere body of people carrying out these activities to the best of their ability.


------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Leowind, I understand your point and am well aware that this is a difficult topic to discuss clearly. What I want to debate just now is the existence of the process of evolution, irrespective of the existence or otherwise of a "creator". Many religious people are quite happy with the process, but some see them as mutually exclusive. That is the point I wish to contend.

The subject of whether a "creator" exists is also interesting, but I would prefer to debate the nature of the putative creator first or we could find that subject rendered irrelevant before we got to it. We would have to then discuss the nature of different religions in a context where perhaps none were valid if we had concluded that there was no such thing as a "creator"

The subject of the nature of free will is separate again and very interesting but fraught with traps.

Right now I would prefer to stick to the primary topic as it is hard enough. but feel free to start preparing your ammunition on others. Perhaps someone else will give you a good run for your money

Perhaps you would snuff me out in a moment anyway

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

from Tekki
it is definitely possible, as is Cornmaster's argument about a contracting universe.

Cornmaster's idea about the laws of physics reversing just because the pull of gravity has achieved a reversal of direction (in not out or down not up) is only possible in the sense that "anything is possible" because it is possible that the rules don't count.

In any event, if we take it literally the first effect of reversing gravity would be to resume the expansion and reverse the rules and resume contraction and reverse the rules and ..............

Seriously though, the idea is absurd. It defies Occam's razor by an order of magnitude almost to great to comprehend.

------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch