Evolution and the teaching thereof ~

[zoonance]

No one has a monopoly on refusing to answer probing questions.  Our questions often gather dust.

[Jimmy]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

[zoonance]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

Youv'e lost me.   Who is being accused of Intellectual Fascism?   If this definition is accurate, who is being accused of Intellectual Fascism?

[Howdyboyalan]

I am still waiting for a reply, but I will not hold my breath, because I know from your other posts elsewhere that you are often unwilling to answer probing questions.

I do not answer probing questions else where because if people REALLY wanted the answer to the kind of questions asked, they could quickly google it. They dont really want the answers though.

Yes, I do support what you would call intellectual fascism. What is unfortunate, is that many people on these boards, and other christian communities will hail things like this

From what i have read from the sites posted , thank you so much  , there is enough "Scientific" evidence that evloution is not real but has being forged to trick people

I am sorry for picking on your personally, I really am, but this is self delusion, there is no scientific evidence disproving evolution. The fire feeds itself, you rub yourselves on the back, because hardly anyone here accepts evolution, it doesnt seem quite so silly to not believe it, and so its ok to say that evolution has been disproved and such nonsense.

The bit where the 'suppression' of creationism etc comes in is this. Only a small minority believe it is being suppressed, because, most people in the western world see it for what it is, totally ridiculous, it is only in cicles such as these, where people can feed their own scientific ignorance, by only really paying attention to those who also lack the proper understanding.

So I will answer your question like this:
If someone wanted to teach that the world was flat in your childs school, and the movement would not go away, you would simply ignore them (you have shown them the evidence, they just refuse to listen). I would not want my impressionable children taught ideas in a science class room not based on science (you can rant and rave all you want, creationism is not based on science, your opinion, nor millions of christians misunderstanding of evidence makes it a science).

Some of you can say evolution is not a science it is a history:
Why do we have a coccyx?
Why do new born infants wrap their hands around your fingers?
Why do we share 95%ish of our genes with the chimps, and a further declining amount with species more seperate from us in the record?
Why do behavioural psychologists constantly find new and further similarities between us and chimps (just pick up a New Scientists), eg chimps using tools, warring, murder etc. Not only that, but more in depth, such as social give and take, conversation and body language and its change through the difference in a couple of our genes. I could go on and on
Why does the fossil record in so many places show clear transitions between species, does anyone here really think god created all these homo-descendants at the same time? or for that matter, horses, seals, whales, lizards
Why is that we have observed genetic changes in lizards, bacteria, dogs, foxs and countless other animals, those genetic changes changing the creature, often radically.
Why is that we can trace the genes back through animals ancestors and active those genes in the modern animal, giving them the traits of their ancestors?
Why do chemical residue in fossils, point to clear changing enviroments? fitting the change which is being forced on the fossil structure?

I could go on forever....The evidence is insurmountable. This is why I am all for the supression of crackpot science, really only there because of a few peoples interpretations of the bible, you dont want scientology taught in school do you? A lot of what I said above has been bought up before, I will post more topics if anyone wants to research them.

Look at it this way, Old earthers among you.
Say the earth is 4.5 billion years old, we know the enviroment has changed a huge deal, how would it be possible for a snow leapord to survive in the ultra humid climate of the dinosaurs without changing to survive? etc? no 'micro-evolution' could ever enable all the species on earth to survive all of the enviromental change that has occured.

If anyone says, all that evidence is over ruled by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or any other creationist favourite, I wont answer. look it up yourself.

Dare to seek information and ideas that doesnt come from someone you know will agree with you.

[zoonance]

The evidence is too scary for some to consider very deeply.  Their faith need not be shaken over something they know little about.  We have a responsibility to each other and so we must be careful not to give too much scientific meat to vegetarians.   It may not be appropriate.  But the evidence is still too incomplete to disallow some alternatives.  Dialogue is good, but only when there is mutual respect and mutual allowance for expertise and ignorance in our respective fields.  We all share both!

[Pokhara]

Yes, I do support what you would call intellectual fascism.

How kind of you to be honest about your odious beliefs.  Do you also support detention without trial?

The bit where the 'suppression' of creationism etc comes in is this. Only a small minority believe it is being suppressed, because, most people in the western world see it for what it is, totally ridiculous,...

It is suppressed, and I do not see how you can say that only a minority believe in it.  In the USA, belief in some form of creationism runs at around fifty percent.

If someone wanted to teach that the world was flat in your childs school, and the movement would not go away, you would simply ignore them (you have shown them the evidence, they just refuse to listen). I would not want my impressionable children taught ideas in a science class room not based on science ...

Then presumably you would not want your children to be taught evolution, which is based not on science but rather on the desire of many science teachers to live a godless lifestyle - or not get sacked for refusing to teach evolution even though they know it is bogus.

Why do we have a coccyx?

Because God created Adam and Eve with a coccyx.  It is a bone which is uniquely shaped for certain muscles to attach to, and does not prove evolution.  Neither does any of the other "evidence" you throw down.

So tell me ... how do you square being a Christian with being a fascist?  Can you point me to a single verse in the Bible which says that it is okay to suppress ideas you don't believe in?

[Howdyboyalan]

So for all to see, you expose yourself for what this all about, you call my belief odious, like I said, it does not matter how many christians believe in creationism, it doesn make it right.

Reply three is just wierd, why would people WANT to lead a godless lifestyle, are you implying scientists know there are huge holes in evolution? they just want to beleive it? That is like saying, we know our ideas our wrong, we just want to go to hell. One of the things a lot of people have ot understand is that there can be no possible motivation in the scientific community to cover this up

Because God created Adam and Eve with a coccyx.  It is a bone which is uniquely shaped for certain muscles to attach to, and does not prove evolution.  Neither does any of the other "evidence" you throw down.

Ofcourse not, and ofcourse you can say that after about 15 minutes, that has given you plenty of time to look over it hasnt it, you have clearly not dared to look.

I would refrain from calling me a fascist if you want answers in future, because you certainly won't be getting an answer to that last question, it is simply immature to fire that off.

[Jimmy]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

Youv'e lost me.   Who is being accused of Intellectual Fascism?   If this definition is accurate, who is being accused of Intellectual Fascism?

I think that Pokhara intended it as a description of the old earth position, generally.  However, I think that is not a bad description of young earth creationism instead.    

[Charles Sloan]

Pokhara,

[Charles Sloan]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

Go into any public school library and count the number of books on Creationism, then count the books promoting pure Darwinian evolution then talk about intellectual fascism and outright brainwashing. For crying out loud they still have Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in text books.

Pure propaganda.

[Pokhara]

So for all to see, you expose yourself for what this all about, you call my belief odious,

Curiously, yes, I do find fascism odious.

...like I said, it does not matter how many christians believe in creationism, it doesn make it right.

Likewise evolution is not made right by the fact that any number of people believe in it ... but on the other hand you did try to argue in an earlier post that not many people believe in creationism - which just isn't true, certainly not in the USA.

Reply three is just weird, why would people WANT to lead a godless lifestyle,

Err ... apart from the fact that the Bible prohibits drunkenness, adultery, and dishonest?

are you implying scientists know there are huge holes in evolution? they just want to believe it?

Correct.

That is like saying, we know our ideas our wrong, we just want to go to hell.

The point about believing in evolution is that it allows you to kid yourself that there is no post-mortem judgment, and that we are all therefore free to get drunk, fornicate, and fiddle our tax returns.

One of the things a lot of people have ot understand is that there can be no possible motivation in the scientific community to cover this up

Then why are so many people so eager to stifle any debate into creation versus evolution?

I would refrain from calling me a fascist if you want answers in future, because you certainly won't be getting an answer to that last question, it is simply immature to fire that off.

I'm sorry, I thought you had freely admitted in an earlier post to supporting intellectual fascism.

I think that Pokhara intended it as a description of the old earth position, generally.  However, I think that is not a bad description of young earth creationism instead.

No, I use the term intellectual fascism to denote the attitude whereby certain people believe that it is right to suppress ideas which they themselves do not subscribe to.  For my own part, I believe that schools should be free to teach more or less what they want, subject to consultation with parents.

[zoonance]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

Go into any public school library and count the number of books on Creationism, then count the books promoting pure Darwinian evolution then talk about intellectual fascism and outright brainwashing. For crying out loud they still have Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in text books.

Pure propaganda.

There can't be a lot of books on creationism.  How could there be?

[Charles Sloan]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

Go into any public school library and count the number of books on Creationism, then count the books promoting pure Darwinian evolution then talk about intellectual fascism and outright brainwashing. For crying out loud they still have Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in text books.

Pure propaganda.

There can't be a lot of books on creationism.  How could there be?

There are thousands of books of Creationism and if they weren't banned from schools there would be more.

[Howdyboyalan]

Go into any public school library and count the number of books on Creationism, then count the books promoting pure Darwinian evolution then talk about intellectual fascism and outright brainwashing. For crying out loud they still have Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in text books.

Pure propaganda.

No Charles, there are no books on creationism on scientific shelves, because creationism does not make any sense. Their understanding of science means nothing.

Does it ever strike you as odd that, the people with the scientific qualifications on this board write you off, while the people who lap up creationism with no scientific qualifications support you? Its exactly the same thing as flat earth, there are no flat earth texts books for the same reason there is no creationism text books. You are to far gone though to understand this.

I pity you in a way, all the 'evidence' you have compiled, all the countless hours your have spent jumping up and down with glee because they found one exception with what might be considered to be dinosaur skin, which somehow gives you the right to ignore all the dinosaurs without skin, and all the dinosaurs that have ever fossilised.

It is sometimes incomprehendable to me how anyone can really think creationism is suppressed because of some vast conspiracy, and how none of you will actually just stop and actually read a scientific text book on evolution. You spend all your time saying you know its not true, yet you know nothing about it. How can you your own massive flaw in logic, do you realise your own hypocrisy when you say evolution is not right when you dont know anything about it (dont say you do because you have spent ages researching it on creation wiki or whatever, like I said, pick up a real scientific text book)

creationism is not on scientific shelves because it is supported by people with your mindset, people with no understanding of scientific process, people who make sciences out of anomolies.

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Time and time again creationists have pitted themselves against evolution, over the past 150 years, and nothing has ever changed, because creationists arm themselves with flood evidence, and mis-representation.

What is mis represented is that it is evolution versus creationism. Its not, creationism has already been disproven, if evolution is disproven, scientists won't go back to creationism, they are going to have find a better way to explain life as it is, if the earth was proved not to be round, we wouldnt go back to saying it was flat.

[zoonance]

Intellectual fascism is how I describe the lamentable attitude of huge numbers of people today who are happy to present one point of view as factual, but who believe also that any conflicting point of view shoiuld receive either negative publicity or not publicity at all.

That seems to me to be a good description of most Young Earth Creationists.

Go into any public school library and count the number of books on Creationism, then count the books promoting pure Darwinian evolution then talk about intellectual fascism and outright brainwashing. For crying out loud they still have Haeckel's drawings of recapitulation in text books.

Pure propaganda.

There can't be a lot of books on creationism.  How could there be?

There are thousands of books of Creationism and if they weren't banned from schools there would be more.

Really?  thousands?  And none of them make it to a public school library?   Why not?  I suspect one could find at least one book on christianity, churches in america, God in history, the role of faith in healing and/or a multitude of other religious issues.   

[zoonance]

I don't write Charles off.  I appreciate his comments and concerns.   I don't expect him to be  passionate about scientific discoveries and the interpretation of data.  It doesn't shock me at all that some interpretations include nonbiblical conclusions, especially from those who wouldn't have a clue what the bible says or doesn't say.  It doesn't shock me that biblical scholars would refute many conclusions or directions that the scientific community takes.  The really difficult part is when we whose professions depend on the scientific community for accurate analysis of the evidence find that the data discovered doesn't squeeze as easy into a literal Genesis account as we who love our Saviour too wish it did.   Those who honestly can not understand our world will obviously have little understanding of our world.  Don't expect them to.  It isn't fair.  They don't deserve name calling and belittlement.  They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.  That is more important than converting nonscientists into scientists.   We have enough of our own responsibilities to the Truth, don't we!  The rain falls on the just and the unjust:  the discoveries and enhancements of science will benefit the understanding and the nonunderstanding: Christian mercy and grace, from both directions, will benefit all humanity.

Truth and facts will eventually become self evident regardless of the journey.

[Charles Sloan]

No Charles, there are no books on creationism on scientific shelves, because creationism does not make any sense. Their understanding of science means nothing.

So if someone doesn't believe in evolution they are just stupid, it that how science operates now?

Does it ever strike you as odd that, the people with the scientific qualifications on this board write you off, while the people who lap up creationism with no scientific qualifications support you? Its exactly the same thing as flat earth, there are no flat earth texts books for the same reason there is no creationism text books. You are to far gone though to understand this.

It doesn't matter if the entire world turns after evolution and I was the only one crying in the wilderness, I will always stand by the Word of God regardless of what the so called "experts" have decided so their flavor of the month.

I pity you in a way, all the 'evidence' you have compiled, all the countless hours your have spent jumping up and down with glee because they found one exception with what might be considered to be dinosaur skin, which somehow gives you the right to ignore all the dinosaurs without skin, and all the dinosaurs that have ever fossilised.

Bones in the ground prove nothing expect its dead.

It is sometimes incomprehendable to me how anyone can really think creationism is suppressed because of some vast conspiracy, and how none of you will actually just stop and actually read a scientific text book on evolution. You spend all your time saying you know its not true, yet you know nothing about it. How can you your own massive flaw in logic, do you realise your own hypocrisy when you say evolution is not right when you dont know anything about it (dont say you do because you have spent ages researching it on creation wiki or whatever, like I said, pick up a real scientific text book)

I have looked at numerous text books ( I did go to school), and within those pages I find the same lies propagated just to support a false theory. The idea of beneficial mutations with only harmful ones given as examples. Examples of so called vestigial organs that are actual reproductive organs or other misrepresented organs. Haeckel's drawings, equine drawings, Archaeopteryx, Piltdown, Peking and other forgeries continued to be presented as factual and scientific data despite the proof they are not authentic.

You can believe that junk is scientific, its often easier to believe lies than the truth.

creationism is not on scientific shelves because it is supported by people with your mindset, people with no understanding of scientific process, people who make sciences out of anomolies.

But people who make science out of lies should be lauded.

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

Time and time again creationists have pitted themselves against evolution, over the past 150 years, and nothing has ever changed, because creationists arm themselves with flood evidence, and mis-representation.

For this they willingly are ignorant... (2Peter 3:5)

What is mis represented is that it is evolution versus creationism. Its not, creationism has already been disproven, if evolution is disproven, scientists won't go back to creationism, they are going to have find a better way to explain life as it is, if the earth was proved not to be round, we wouldnt go back to saying it was flat.

Oh I agree that the world wouldn't return to the Word of God, they are too far gone to accept the truth even if he were to return in the clouds to smite the earth. And again I agree you are right, if evolution were to be categorically rejected by the secular scientific community they would find something new. Something probably even more stupid and deranged then life spontaneously evolving from rocks.

Alien ant farms maybe...

[zoonance]

And thus I have made my point.    This isn't dialogue.  It doesn't require any expertise in any field.

[Jimmy]

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

Basically they don't.  It is nearly impossible to deal with the argument that creationist use relative to the 2nd law.  Generally those making the argument really do not understand much of anything about the 2nd law.  The simply parrot back some nonsense that they have heard about the 2nd law, entropy, order/disorder.  It is probably one of the issues on which the creationist display the greatest ignorance.

By the way, an open system is not the exception.  it is the rule.  Except for the universe itself, assuming it is a closed system, there really is no such thing as a closed system.  It is a mathematical construct which can be approximated in the laboratory and in some isolated natural systems, and can be useful when use properly.  It is much like the "frictionless surface" which is also a mathematical construct and nonexistant but can be a useful concept.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

Basically they don't.  It is nearly impossible to deal with the argument that creationist use relative to the 2nd law.  Generally those making the argument really do not understand much of anything about the 2nd law.  The simply parrot back some nonsense that they have heard about the 2nd law, entropy, order/disorder.  It is probably one of the issues on which the creationist display the greatest ignorance.

By the way, an open system is not the exception.  it is the rule.  Except for the universe itself, assuming it is a closed system, there really is no such thing as a closed system.  It is a mathematical construct which can be approximated in the laboratory and in some isolated natural systems, and can be useful when use properly.  It is much like the "frictionless surface" which is also a mathematical construct and nonexistant but can be a useful concept.

That's funny, you tell me they don't then you demonstrate they do.

[Jimmy]

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

Basically they don't.  It is nearly impossible to deal with the argument that creationist use relative to the 2nd law.  Generally those making the argument really do not understand much of anything about the 2nd law.  The simply parrot back some nonsense that they have heard about the 2nd law, entropy, order/disorder.  It is probably one of the issues on which the creationist display the greatest ignorance.

By the way, an open system is not the exception.  it is the rule.  Except for the universe itself, assuming it is a closed system, there really is no such thing as a closed system.  It is a mathematical construct which can be approximated in the laboratory and in some isolated natural systems, and can be useful when use properly.  It is much like the "frictionless surface" which is also a mathematical construct and nonexistant but can be a useful concept.

That's funny, you tell me they don't then you demonstrate they do.

Charles, that is just one more example that science and scientific things seem to have escaped you.  What I am telling you is that you nor the vast majority of creationist types who appeal to the 2nd law have any real idea what you are talking about.

I posted the infor about open/closed systems as a "By the way" to help you understand why the argument generally made is just wrong.

If you would like to delve deeper into the 2nd law, what it means  and what the consequences are we could do that, but it is not a trivial subject by any means.  But you need to remind yourself never to appeal to the 2nd law unless you really know what you are talking about.

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

Basically they don't.  It is nearly impossible to deal with the argument that creationist use relative to the 2nd law.  Generally those making the argument really do not understand much of anything about the 2nd law.  The simply parrot back some nonsense that they have heard about the 2nd law, entropy, order/disorder.  It is probably one of the issues on which the creationist display the greatest ignorance.

By the way, an open system is not the exception.  it is the rule.  Except for the universe itself, assuming it is a closed system, there really is no such thing as a closed system.  It is a mathematical construct which can be approximated in the laboratory and in some isolated natural systems, and can be useful when use properly.  It is much like the "frictionless surface" which is also a mathematical construct and nonexistant but can be a useful concept.

That's funny, you tell me they don't then you demonstrate they do.

Charles, that is just one more example that science and scientific things seem to have escaped you.  What I am telling you is that you nor the vast majority of creationist types who appeal to the 2nd law have any real idea what you are talking about.

I posted the infor about open/closed systems as a "By the way" to help you understand why the argument generally made is just wrong.

If you would like to delve deeper into the 2nd law, what it means  and what the consequences are we could do that, but it is not a trivial subject by any means.  But you need to remind yourself never to appeal to the 2nd law unless you really know what you are talking about.

I never even mentioned the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, so put the strawman back in the cornfield.

[Jimmy]

Charles, creationists believe the 2nd law prohibits evolution, that is why creationism is not on the shelves, it is wrong, its not down to their opinions on their interpretation of the 2nd law and others, its just wrong.

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

Basically they don't.  It is nearly impossible to deal with the argument that creationist use relative to the 2nd law.  Generally those making the argument really do not understand much of anything about the 2nd law.  The simply parrot back some nonsense that they have heard about the 2nd law, entropy, order/disorder.  It is probably one of the issues on which the creationist display the greatest ignorance.

By the way, an open system is not the exception.  it is the rule.  Except for the universe itself, assuming it is a closed system, there really is no such thing as a closed system.  It is a mathematical construct which can be approximated in the laboratory and in some isolated natural systems, and can be useful when use properly.  It is much like the "frictionless surface" which is also a mathematical construct and nonexistant but can be a useful concept.

That's funny, you tell me they don't then you demonstrate they do.

Charles, that is just one more example that science and scientific things seem to have escaped you.  What I am telling you is that you nor the vast majority of creationist types who appeal to the 2nd law have any real idea what you are talking about.

I posted the infor about open/closed systems as a "By the way" to help you understand why the argument generally made is just wrong.

If you would like to delve deeper into the 2nd law, what it means  and what the consequences are we could do that, but it is not a trivial subject by any means.  But you need to remind yourself never to appeal to the 2nd law unless you really know what you are talking about.

I never even mentioned the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, so put the strawman back in the cornfield.

Then perhas you could tell me what "argument" you were referring to in the quote above, i.e,

Then why do evolutionists counter this argument with the exception of an "open system"?

It seems that you are engaging in some double speak here.

[Charles Sloan]

Alan brought it up as a strawman first, I just commented on it. If you are still confused read the tread.

[Jimmy]

Are you trying to tell me that YE Creationists do not say the 2nd law precludes evolution?  I have had that one thrown at me any number of times. 

The following is from your beloved answersingenesis:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

The obvious implication here is that the 2nd law prevents evolution.  It does not.

[Charles Sloan]

Are you trying to tell me that YE Creationists do not say the 2nd law precludes evolution?  I have had that one thrown at me any number of times. 

The following is from your beloved answersingenesis:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.6 Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.7

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

The obvious implication here is that the 2nd law prevents evolution.  It does not.

Read my posts on this thread, I have not mentioned thermodynamics at all. If you would like to start a thread on the discussion of thermodynamics and creationism be my guest. But that has nothing to do with any of my comments, so as I said put the strawman back in the cornfield.

[zoonance]

answersingenesis is a valuable tool.   It is a great source for determining the line of reasoning of christian scientists(for want of an alternative, more accurate label in some cases).  *Some may be scientists by profession in some field.  They may also be concert pianists, artists, whatever too.    At least some people are wrestling with the data and trying to come up with viable alternatives.  Until proven or disproven, all theories are valid for consideration.  It is the unprovable/untestable stuff that prevents scientific validity and thus there isn't much to discuss scientifically at that point.  Not necessarily false, just not science.   

[Jimmy]

For what it is worth, that bit that I quoted from answersingenesis is just plain wrong.  I find that not to be too unusual where answersingenesis is concerned.  Enough so that I consider then entire web site to be little more that intellectual dishonesty.

[Howdyboyalan]

Read my posts on this thread, I have not mentioned thermodynamics at all. If you would like to start a thread on the discussion of thermodynamics and creationism be my guest. But that has nothing to do with any of my comments, so as I said put the strawman back in the cornfield.

using thermodynamics is still a creationist thing, just for clarification, what is your position on it charles?

[Charles Sloan]

using thermodynamics is still a creationist thing, just for clarification, what is your position on it charles?

Since its clear you can't answer my comments, I suggest you follow the yellow brick road.

[Howdyboyalan]

using thermodynamics is still a creationist thing, just for clarification, what is your position on it charles?

Since its clear you can't answer my comments, I suggest you follow the yellow brick road.

which comments?

[Jimmy]

Charles,

I don't think you fully understand what a strawman is.  Howdy didn't put up a strawman.  He made a statement about the creationist's faulty presentation of the 2nd law precluding evolution.  His statement is true.  Creationists do in fact misrepresent the 2nd law in relation to evolutionary processes.  If he would have made a false or weak argument/statement for the purpose of knocking it down, then it would have been a strawman.  As it is, his statement is true as is obvious from the answersingenesis post.  It was not a strawman.

[Charles Sloan]

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

No where in my comments did I make even a remote reference to thermodynamics, and that topic has nothing to do with this thread. Yet you both insist on pressing the discussion in that direction and pretending like I brought it up. My position was that the teaching of evolution (note the title of the thread) was based on lies and fraud. So evolution defying the most basic laws of thermodynamics is not my position in this discussion, so this is purely a strawman.

If you want to derail this thread into your signature reductio ad absurdum, or by controlling the message be my guest, I just will take no part in discussions being manipulated with your petty and juvenile fallacies.

[Howdyboyalan]

you are not the only opponent here Charles. I also barely bought it up,  I used it as 1 example of how creationists use bogus science, and you then started talking about open systems.

If you would like me to edit the post and change it to another example of creationist bogus science, then I will.

My point was, is that scientifically, creationism does not stand up to evolution.

Incase anyone is interested, I saw a good program last night, and since on this forum it always tends to be evolutionists defending itself, without creationists never having to answer questions...

This program showed how a fathers genes have the desire to make the baby grow as big as possible, as back when days were tougher, a bigger baby had more chance of a survival, so fathers who had more big babies were more likely to pass on their genes.
However, ofcourse, women cant have to big a babies, or it leads to increased complications, so they have a gene that inhibits baby growth, (both these genes work through nutrient flow in the placenta). Now ofcourse, the more women who had this gene survived, as less would die in child birth.

So you have a case of male and female evolving different reproductive stratagies that are at odds with each other. Why would god have created us from scratch with this imbalance, which can lead to problems such as pre-eclampsia etc. I think this is a great example of defeating the mis-understanding of this topic that evolution makes us all perfectly suited to our environments.

From a creationist stand point this makes little sense, why would god do this?  This genetic difference only makes sense when survival of the fittest is taken into account.

This is why evolution should be taught, as I mentioned before, we can go along without it, but it connects all the aspects of biology into one big thing which makes it easier to understand. Nothing makes perfect sense without it, we always have a question left in biology in nearly ever topic, until we introduce evolution.  Evolution has thousands upon thousands of examples like this, showing us how it works, creationism has nothing. Why would we give our kids the opposing view the earth is flat, when we know its round.

[zoonance]

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

No where in my comments did I make even a remote reference to thermodynamics, and that topic has nothing to do with this thread. Yet you both insist on pressing the discussion in that direction and pretending like I brought it up. My position was that the teaching of evolution (note the title of the thread) was based on lies and fraud. So evolution defying the most basic laws of thermodynamics is not my position in this discussion, so this is purely a strawman.

If you want to derail this thread into your signature reductio ad absurdum, or by controlling the message be my guest, I just will take no part in discussions being manipulated with your petty and juvenile fallacies.

Though lies and fraud may be found somewhere under the umbrella of Evolution (just like there may be found lies and fraud somewhere under the umbrella of Chrisitianity), these characterizations are not the base of either evolution or christianity.   Misinformation, error, unintential falsehoods are not lies but are found in both as well.   (two opposing views on free will, baptism, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. - they can't all be accurate!)  Individuals within the scientific community and withing the Church are to be held responsible for what they perpetrate.  Not the entirety.   The data supports the Theory.    If it didn't, it wouldn't be sustained.  That doesn't mean it is 100% accurate or even true!  But, the evidence continues to support and yes, even increasingly validate, the theory of evolution.   That doesn't mean it had to take billions of years and so forth.  Just that truth, honesty, evidence, sincerity... etc.  can be found outside the pew.