God vs. Science

[cardesignz]

Lots of people do consider it threatening. Why do you think the ridiculous creationist museum exists or there is so much fuss about evolution even when the science behind it is sound?

What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder). This would suggest that at one time there was a perfect genetic code that has merely been losing parts over time resulting in diseases and mutations - what millions of doctors and scientists are constantly fighting today. Scientists cannot even directly link a human to a monkey (our supposed closest relative). Ever heard of a "missing link"?

Of course there is micro evolution (changes) resulting from mutations and genetic selection, but it does not ever involve new genetic information being created. Take for example a dogs. All of the genetic information needed to create virtually every species of dog can be found in a wolf. A poodle would be an obvious result of breeding and mutations.

[The12lber]

What science behind it? Since when have scientists seen genetic information being created? All that occurs is genetic mutations (loss of information) which directly corresponds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (going from state of order to disorder).

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Epic fail, sir.

[David88vert]

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Epic fail, sir.

Actually, it is still closed. You are not creating any new matter, merely converting from one form to another through an expenditure of energy. In your example, you are not decreasing entropy, so you are not violating the 2nd law. That's an important distinction.


Snowflakes, etc, are an example of patterns, not codes. Patterns do not require intelligence to create them, codes and languages do. Can you show me a message that did not come from intelligence?