Skillet and Superfrozo,
I know I said I was done but, Superfrozo at least despite the mocking and ridicule, has actually come up with some debatable points so let me at least respond. To all those who simply want to discuss the weather please accept my apologies. It never ceases to amaze me the zeal with which some atheists defend their religious ideas about where we came from and why we are here. It would make the most evangelical Christian proud! So lets get started:
1. Biological Evolution and Information Theory.
Ok so Skillet says mutations don’t create new information but Superfrozo claims they do, so which is it? If they don’t Skillet, then what process does? You both say that evolution has been observed. The definition of evolution is very important here, if you are referring to genetic changes within a population over time then I would agree, that is in fact observed, but if you mean humans evolving from simple life forms then I would say this has definitely not been observed. Just because it supposedly happens over great periods of time does not remove the burden of proof for evolutionists. Every case studied so far, admittedly with the exception of the bacteria and nylon case (I will address that in a second), has been the result of functionality breaking in the cell. While this may infer a survival advantage in a given environment (antibiotics for example) the cell is less able to survive in the wild as functionality it requires is missing so is less fit.
Now for the bacteria and nylon case, this is an example of what I referred to in a previous post, where there seems to be evidence of some mechanism that drives this adaptability. I’m certainly no expert but from what I’ve read there are multiple lines of evidence pointing in this direction, for example, the new genes are found in a very specific area of the genome which is highly unlikely if they were the result of random chance and secondly the transposable elements are unaffected so again it is highly unlikely these new genes would evolve and leave these areas alone. It is very telling that one of the original evolutionist researchers said “These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes”. It is becoming clear this change is a designed process to allow the bacterium to adapt to different food sources.
Superfrozo, I readily admit I’m no expert in Information theory but creationists have certainly addressed it comprehensively so asserting otherwise with no evidence is really nothing more than mud slinging. Your statement about information coming from the environment and hence ‘no need to account for the creation of information’ is completely nonsensical and simply an attempt to avoid the obvious problem. For a ‘trial and error’ scenario you talk about to work, you need new information to have the trial!
2. The Second law of Thermodynamics
You clearly have no idea what the crux of the creationist argument is as it has nothing to do with open and closed systems. No one is going to argue that the earth is an open system, or that sometimes local decreases in entropy can occur within appropriate increases elsewhere, the problem for evolution is that, put simply, living organisms are unable to use all this energy without complex systems in place. This is the point I was making about standing in the sun. Living things, like plants and animals, need both a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity and a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. So the idea that life could arise, decrease in entropy, without these systems in place clearly violates the second law.
Incidentally open systems are also prone to increasing entropy as the evolutionist scientist Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
‘…*there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.*…* There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself’.
3. Worldview and the Naturalism paradigm
Central to this debate is one’s worldview, put another way there is no such thing as an unbiased observer, and this includes mainstream scientists. Creationists are not implying some huge conspiracy, but simply a situation where all current science, in fact all education, is taught with naturalism as established fact, so it is not surprising when the vast majority believe in naturalism. But this does not make it right, it’s a good thing Galileo didn’t just go along with the science of his day or still may think the sun revolves around the earth!
Peer review is subject to the exact same problem, good valid creationist research is rejected not because of problems with the science but simply because of the conclusions drawn. I guess if you can’t refute it, it’s best to just ignore it!
Like it or not there are many real scientists who hold to a biblical creationist explanation of origins, you can’t just dismiss them because you don’t like the message. If your game have a look at
Creation scientists, yes I know it’s a creationist site but if you reject it simply because of that you have proven my point.
Ultimately guys this is not about the science but about us not wanting to be accountable to our creator. Superfrozo, with respect you lose all credibility with your relativistic drivel about purpose. Surely you would know the whole philosophy behind Darwinian evolution is undirected natural processes, what did Dawkins say, ‘....blind pitiless indifference’? That’s it for me, to be honest I have better things to do so good luck guys and God bless.