Another person who wants his questions answered...

[EGGO]

Someone told me this. I'll answer as much as I can to them, but seeing that I just stuffed myself with food, and right now I want to take a nap, I'll also put it here so then I can get the total specifics to my describing of these questions the person is asking.

-------------
Now these are other issues to consider with evolution:
Isn't evolution just another form of the scientifically discredited theory of “spontaneous generation” — which claimed that living matter springs mysteriously from non-organic matter?

Doesn't evolution rest on the logically absurd notion that the universe created itself? That something comes from nothing? That effects have no original cause?

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay?

Why do leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record “suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual … transitional sequences” (George Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution)? This is exactly what creationism would predict!

Also, your argument still does not address the origin of morals or ethics.
---------------

Don't worry about answering that last one, I think I'm still awake enough to tell the person that where in god's nonexistant mind does evolution have the hold on morals?

[Lobstrosity]

Originally posted by EGGO
Someone told me this. I'll answer as much as I can to them, but seeing that I just stuffed myself with food, and right now I want to take a nap, I'll also put it here so then I can get the total specifics to my describing of these questions the person is asking.
Well, I'll take a stab at it...


Isn't evolution just another form of the scientifically discredited theory of “spontaneous generation” — which claimed that living matter springs mysteriously from non-organic matter?
No.

Doesn't evolution rest on the logically absurd notion that the universe created itself? That something comes from nothing? That effects have no original cause?
No.

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay?
No.

Why do leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record “suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual … transitional sequences” (George Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution)? This is exactly what creationism would predict!
The rate at which species evolve is not some universal constant. It can vary. Sometimes it's very gradual, sometimes morphological changes can occur quite rapidly. It all depends on the amount of variation present and the nature of the selective pressures. Creationism predicts that all species (or, to be generous, kinds) were created spontaneously by God at the same point in history. It does not predict that species should randomly appear from nothing at various points in the fossil record (this would be the scientifically-discredited theory of spontaneous generation).

Wow, the first three were pretty easy.

[Evolutionist]

*yawn* oh dear... :rolleyes:

Isn't evolution just another form of the scientifically discredited theory of “spontaneous generation” — which claimed that living matter springs mysteriously from non-organic matter

the theory he is talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. and its nothing like what he said, obviously, it's far more complicated. check out:

abiogenesis (talk origins) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

abiogenesis (http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html)

to find out more.

Doesn't evolution rest on the logically absurd notion that the universe created itself? That something comes from nothing? That effects have no original cause?

doesn't chemistry and physics rely on the exact same thing? evolution has got nothing to do with the big bang, nor does it have anything to do with abiogenesis. i'd like to see how the debator thinks inserting a deity into the equation actually answers anything.

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay?

short answer: no.

slightly longer answer- no more than a tree growing from a seed violates the second law. i would suggest that the debator thinks about this: if evolution did violate a major law in physics, don't you think all the physicians the world over would have said something by now?

Why do leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record “suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual … transitional sequences” (George Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution)? This is exactly what creationism would predict!

not quite. creation would predict all the kinds (define it) were created at once, and then have them all die out a couple thousand years ago after the flood, before repopulating the earth from two "kinds" via a hyper-accelerated evolutionary process.

becides, this is down to the reproductive rates of the species in question and fossils being so hard to produce. the entire human population as it stands today would only leave a couple dozen (if that) fossils.

Also, your argument still does not address the origin of morals or ethics.

whether or not morality has anything to do with biological evolution is still a debated issue. most likely not, as ideas aren't passed on genetically. its to do with societies. also, evolution does not have anything to do with ethics, any more than gravity does.

"gravity says objects fall to the ground- does that mean we should all start chucking people off tall buildings?"

i would love to remember who actually said that. sounds like something dawkins would say.

so, to sum up: the person you're discussing evolution knows little to nothing about it. that are all old, worn out arguments. i actually groaned when i saw the 2nd law one.

[EGGO]

Back from that nap, with little time to spare until I must visit my girlfriend's house...

I mostly answered the first two questions the person had by myself, they seemed easy enough. I would like to use Evolutionist's last two though. They go into more detail than I can.

Unlike Evolutionist though, I personally smirked when I read the 2nd law thing. :)

[Doubting Didymus]

if evolution did violate a major law in physics, don't you think all the physicians the world over would have said something by now?

Yes, they'd have said: "Take some paracetamol and go and visit a physicist. Oh, and then give me a hundred-odd dollars for wasting my time." ;)

[Jet Grind]

Isn't evolution just another form of the scientifically discredited theory of “spontaneous generation” — which claimed that living matter springs mysteriously from non-organic matter?

No, that's abiogenesis. Evolution and abiogenesis have almost nothing to do with another.

Aside from that, he is presenting a misleading description of it. There is no difference between organic and inorganic matter (the idea that it was is the idea that's long discredited, it was known as the doctrine of vitalism). An atom of cardon in your body is no different than an atom of carbon in the air, it's how those atoms are structured.

Abiogenesis itself is covered in links alread provided by another poster.

Doesn't evolution rest on the logically absurd notion that the universe created itself? That something comes from nothing? That effects have no original cause?

According to many physicists, that notion is not "logically absurd". Secondly, it has nothing to do with evolution.

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay?

The second law only applies to closed systems (a system not recieving energy from an external source). It's moot since the earth constantly recieves energy from the sun via photosynthesis. Evolution doesn't violate the second law of TD anymore than water violates it by boiling.

Why do leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record “suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual … transitional sequences” (George Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution)? This is exactly what creationism would predict!

That's not evidence for creation at all. Just because you have a few sudden dicoveries of one species or another doesn't mean that creation is implicit. This was explained well by another poster in this thread.

Also, your argument still does not address the origin of morals or ethics.

Morals and ethics are evolved traits, since we are social creatures we gradually developed them. The same thing goes for language.

[demoninho]

Damn I've seen the same 5 questions many times before.

They must have a website somewhere called "5 questions evolutionists cannot or will not answer".

[Evolutionist]

Yes, they'd have said: "Take some paracetamol and go and visit a physicist. Oh, and then give me a hundred-odd dollars for wasting my time."

*grins*

teaches me for not proof reading before i send a post :p

cheers Doubting Didymus!

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay?


No--not anywhere close to it. Entropy is a very well defined concept, and you have stated it terribly. IT states that entropy must never decrease in a losed (that is, recieving no additional energy from outside) system. Further, entropy isn't the breakdown of disorder--it is a statement about the availible states for chemicals to exist.

Your reading this orders several hundred bits of information in your head--but to do so, several hundred thousand bits are disordered around you. Living organisms take in pure elements and simple chemicals, and process them into more complicated stuff, such as sugars and CO2. This releases energy and has an associated entropic increase with it. Further, warm-blooded organisms heat the air around them, thereby increasing entropy.

The second law of thermodynamics is in no way, shape, or form violated. You needn't point out that the earth is solar powered for it to work--there still is a net increase of entropy on the earth by living.

[Evolutionist]

i actually remember debating a creationist about the 2nd law, and he never let go of it. i was surrounded by right-wing christians, so no one "ganged up" against him to corroborate what i was telling him, i was (at best) left to do it myself. ok, easy. however, not so easy when your opponent has no grasp of simple scientific concepts and terminology.

[Jillian]

Originally posted by Evolutionist
i actually remember debating a creationist about the 2nd law, and he never let go of it. i was surrounded by right-wing christians, so no one "ganged up" against him to corroborate what i was telling him, i was (at best) left to do it myself. ok, easy. however, not so easy when your opponent has no grasp of simple scientific concepts and terminology.

The best way I've found to handle the thermodynamics invokers is to ask them to actually TELL you what the second law of thermodynamics says. And if they say anything about chaos, or broken teacups spontaneously reforming, just pat them on the head and give them a cookie and a copy of Physics for Dummies.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by EGGO
Also, your argument still does not address the origin of morals or ethics.

Since everyone else has done such a good job with the first set of questions, I thought I'd throw in a comment about this one. :)

God cannot possibly be the origin of morals and ethics, since I find the God of the OT both immoral and unethical. Our standards differ, so they cannot be the same.

Ethics and morals are inherited from your parents, but through teaching, not genetics. They are not subject to the biological theory of evolution, but they do evolve (using the more general meaning of the term evolve, which is simply change over time). They originated from the fact that man is a social animal, and any action that harms the society also harms the individual.

[Evolutionist]

i just find the whole assumption that humans are too stupid to work out whats wrong and right too moronic to deserve comment... :rolleyes:

[Oolon Colluphid]

Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), which says that everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay?
The 2LoT refers to closed systems.
The only truly closed system is the universe itself.
Within that, there can be temporary local reversals in entropy.
If “everything generally runs from order to disorder and from complexity to decay”, I wonder if your interlocutor can explain how he himself developed from a single egg into an adult?

Note that when he dies, his temporary local reversal in entropy will cease, and he will go from complexity to decay. (Say, I guess this means that souls vilate the Second Law! ;))
Why do leading evolutions concede that species appear in the fossil record “suddenly, and are not led up to by gradual … transitional sequences” (George Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution)? This is exactly what creationism would predict!
Ah, old George. Very old, in fact he’d be 101 if he’d not died in 1984. (I’ve always found it amusing that a leading expert on horse evolution should be called GG Simpson. Maybe it’s just me ;).) Well, old George was wrong, or wrongly quoted out of context. This is the ‘no transitionals’ canard, yet again. Assuming it’s out-of-context, I won’t get on GG’s case, and just point out two examples of gradual transitional change in the fossil record: Peter Sheldon’s paper ‘Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites’, Nature 330, 561-563 (1987). And, um, this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

How does creationism predict that?!

In short, it doesn’t matter if things appear suddenly, or if there’s gaps. In the rare places where there are not gaps, evolution is vindicated. Unless your chappie wants a god of the gaps, of course...

Oh, and on gaps, there’s always Romer’s Gap (http://www.evolutionpages.com/pederpes%20finneyae.htm), which isn’t quite as gappy as it used to be...

Cheers, Oolon