The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[El_Machinae]

1) Nothing

2) "But 'over time, things become less organised'! That violates evolution, where it becomes MORE organised!"

 

[Che Guava]

1) Nothing

2) "But 'over time, things become less organised'! That violates evolution, where it becomes MORE organised!"

SIgh, I guess this is more for diablodelmar than you.

Things are getting more complex! we are evidence of that! If evolution tended towards less complexity/randomness, we would still be bacteria in the primordial ooze!

I get so sick of hearing people say that we're somehow the endpoint of all evolution, and therefore evolution/n-s must be a very specific, organized phenomenon. Life is much more diverse and complex than when it started, and it certainly isn't showing any signs of slowing.

 

[El_Machinae]

But complexity/organisation violates thermodynamics! Things tend to disorder over time. Do rocks get more organised?

Anyway, it's a bunk argument, because whatever 'thread' they're looking for is countered by saying "your argument does not explain why babies grow up, and get bigger"

 

[ironduck]

THe amount of complexity in our systems has little to do with how 'aggressive' natural selection has been. The selection pressure is determined by the environment, and by how well the organisms in that environment can handle it. If anything, nature has been quite kind to us: our environment is relatively stable, our diet and habitat are flexible enough to live in a myriad of locations across the earth. The main competition we have is with each other, and we decide how cut-throat that might be.

I was specifically thinking of key points where the conditions seem to have been extremely difficult, something that likely played an enormous role in our evolution. I recently read an article on research that points to a time and place in Africa where conditions changed rather dramatically, forcing a strong adaption which probably was key to the development of our intellectual capacity. Of course with my leaky brain I don't recall the details but someone else in this thread probably does..

 

[diablodelmar]

Think about your question this way. How do babies grow, and get bigger, and more complex, while they age (at least until their teens)?

The 'laws of thermodynamics' that you think are being violated by evolution, are also being violated by organism growth.

No they aren't though! Matter is not being created or destroyed, we already had the hydrogen, oxygen and all the other elements to make a full human being, they were just put in through feeding and breathing.

What I am refering to is the supposed "big bang". Allegedly, nothing exploded and became something.

 

[ironduck]

Why would rat mtDNA degrade faster than human? I mean, I've said that humans last 20 years with minimal (but additive) damage - so why would their 8 months even matter?

They don't degrade faster, but if there's accumulation that will build faster due to the shorter time between generations.

 

[ironduck]

Can someone answer my rain and rainbow questions yet?

 

[diablodelmar]

SIgh, I guess this is more for diablodelmar than you.

Things are getting more complex! we are evidence of that! If evolution tended towards less complexity/randomness, we would still be bacteria in the primordial ooze!

I get so sick of hearing people say that we're somehow the endpoint of all evolution, and therefore evolution/n-s must be a very specific, organized phenomenon. Life is much more diverse and complex than when it started, and it certainly isn't showing any signs of slowing.

Things can get more complex, but this is only through intervention by something like the Sun or us humans. Otherwise left things will go to disorder. Things will rust or decay.

 

[Che Guava]

What I am refering to is the supposed "big bang". Allegedly, nothing exploded and became something.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Why do people use that ridiculous argument for something so specific like biological evolution??! If that's all it takes, then I would like to content that you sir, do not exist. We have no explanation for the big bang, hence no explanation for matter, energy, life, and, ergo, you.

I know that you probably don't beleive in the big bang, but since there's about as much proof of it as there is to the existance of an benevolent, onmipotent being that guides our lives and society, I guess we're in a deadlock.

 

[diablodelmar]

Can someone answer my rain and rainbow questions yet?

Which one? The one where you expressed your belief for rain and rainbows before the flood? Relay this question again, please.

 

[Samson]

No they aren't though! Matter is not being created or destroyed, we already had the hydrogen, oxygen and all the other elements to make a full human being, they were just put in through feeding and breathing.

What I am refering to is the supposed "big bang". Allegedly, nothing exploded and became something.

I what theory did the big bang come from nothing? I am not saying there is not such a theory, but I have heard many others. My present favorate is that is was the formation of a 5 dimentional black hole.

 

[diablodelmar]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Why do people use that ridiculous argument for something so specific like biological evolution??! If that's all it takes, then I would like to content that you sir, do not exist. We have no explanation for the big bang, hence no explanation for matter, energy, life, and, ergo, you.

I know that you probably don't beleive in the big bang, but since there's about as much proof of it as there is to the existance of an benevolent, onmipotent being that guides our lives and society, I guess we're in a deadlock.

And you said you were argueing for evolution? Please, I am a simple man, say this again but in legible English, please, because right now I can't figure out your arguement.

 

[El_Machinae]

They don't degrade faster, but if there's accumulation that will build faster due to the shorter time between generations.

It wouldn't accumulate faster, though (if they degraded at the same rate). Remember, the mitochondria are preserved. They're not 'new' organisms every generation (unlike us) - they're the same organism.

So, a rat born 20 years after its ancestor would have the same degredation at the mtDNA in the gamete of a 20 year old woman. (Again, assuming the same rate of degradation).

What I am refering to is the supposed "big bang".

You're out of your league on this one. People cannot even understand (let alone refute) the Big Bang theory until they've taken at least 3 years of university. You need advanced calculus to even start on it. Suffice it to say that you don't understand it enough to figure out how it might (or might not) actually work.

It would be like a child arguing what the original Greek interpretation of Romans 4 was.

 

[diablodelmar]

I what theory did the big bang come from nothing? I am not saying there is not such a theory, but I have heard many others. My present favorate is that is was the formation of a 5 dimentional black hole.

eeerrrr, the one thats called Evolution. Have you heard of it?

 

[Che Guava]

I what theory did the big bang come from nothing? I am not saying there is not such a theory, but I have heard many others. My present favorate is that is was the formation of a 5 dimentional black hole.

No matter wqhat way it happened, it still had about as much to do with the evolution of life on earth as the chicken-and-the-egg question has to do with making a good omelette...

EDIT:diablodelmar, this should answer your question too....

 

[El_Machinae]

Things can get more complex, but this is only through intervention by something like the Sun or us humans. Otherwise left things will go to disorder. Things will rust or decay.

You're about one paragraph away from understanding the difference between an open and closed system!

Basically, if there is outside energy included, things don't need to get more disordered.

 

[diablodelmar]

You're out of your league on this one. People cannot even understand (let alone refute) the Big Bang theory until they've taken at least 3 years of university. You need advanced calculus to even start on it. Suffice it to say that you don't understand it enough to figure out how it might (or might not) actually work.

It would be like a child arguing what the original Greek interpretation of Romans 4 was.

Who cares if I am out of my league??? Why is that all evolutionists are capable of. When they can't disprove something, they tell you "you're not qualified to argue that!". Listen to yourself! It sounds very shakey...

I find that slightly dumb.

 

[diablodelmar]

You're about one paragraph away from understanding the difference between an open and closed system!

Basically, if there is outside energy included, things don't need to get more disordered.

And how did this come about? You want to tell me that nothing can explode and create this? I see what you are getting at and am familiar with the concept. However, I think you will find that it still applies! even though we have the sun.

 

[El_Machinae]

eeerrrr, the one thats called Evolution. Have you heard of it?

Evolution is specifically about how organisms grow and adapt to new environments.

Although the Big Bang is certainly part of the "Creationism" debate, it's got nothing to do with evolution.

 

[warpus]

diablodelmar

All you're doing is throwing catch-phrases at us, instead of actually formulating coherent arguments so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

"THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!$@!!" is not really an argument. If you think that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the theory of evolution, please outline HOW, so that we can either agree with you, or attempt to counter your claims.

Also, The theory of Evolution makes no mention of the Big Bang. Surely, you understand this.