Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

If this planet is an "open system" subject to energy gain/loss then how can you demonstrate a "closed system" - surely this is oxymoronic?

Aproximations to closed systems can be set up.

Anyway, I don't need to show that the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. I only need to show that it does not apply to open systems, and that the earth is one. You are the one arguing that the second law precludes evolution.

a classical ploy ein. The originaal thermo argument, a historical footnote thats been picked up by Creationists for totally different reasons, was posed by Williaam Thomson himself. His argument was based upon a continuously unidirectionally cooling earth. This, he felt,, wouldntt allow time for life to develop because , by his ispsidixit ism , it wouldntt comply with his rules of Thermodynamics.
As Mike Anderson said. "If thermodynamics doesnt allow for evolution, then so much for thermo' Life is a self regulating metabolic process, not a unidirectional process of decaY.

alSO bIB, your quote from Capra made me go baack and review the lines. His entire argument, from which you only clip a smidge, was for the additional mechanisms of recombination and, as Margulis , a Gaia proponent , proposes, capture of entire genomes at the eukaryotic stage. CApra, a physicist didnt understand that mutations accumulate in other parts of the genome aand as the DNA is recombined, these mutaations are brought in line with coding genes where they can have non- ltthal, and often beneficial effects.

Someone called you the Aristotle of a2k, . Id raather confer upon you the tittle of William Jennings Bryant


For claiming not to be a Creationist, you are passionately arguing some rather dead end points. Are you having problems in finding answers in the trail of evidence. My suggestion is to read the entire quotes in context, rather than cuttting and pasting them from secondary sources like the Institute for Creation Science orChristian ACtion. Now dontt say you didnt do this because your quotes are clipped at exactly the same spots that ICS cuts . Coincidence?, I think not.

Farmer: I knew that you would do two things...

1. Check out some of the quoted citations and make the allegation that they are only "clips" - which somehow, in your mind, means that they are void, and therefore don't represent the views of "evolution scientists."

2. That you would make the allegation that the quoted citations are from a "Creationist" source, somehow convincing yourself, and trying to look all Sherlock Holmes-esque, that I am a proponent for creationism.

But you protest, and boast, too much. Every QUOTATION that I have placed here are actual citations made by "evolution scientists" and posted here within their context.
To post them here, and to counter comments that contradict such quotations, neither makes me a creationist OR an evolutionist, as you and others have stated.
Being Devil's Advocate does not of itself imply or infer that one is siding for or against either school of thought, whether it be mainstream, popular, fundamentalist, or extremist.

The title of this thread is: "Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?"

Who wants to know? I have posted actual citations from professional bodies that have been authored by professors and other academics - those quotations are their actual thoughts in print - what difficulty does anyone have with that?

If you don't agree with the context or comments of the cited authors then that is your privilege, but remember, it's THEIR words, not mine; it's THEIR published, professional material, not mine.
Because I have reproduced their material here does not mean that I believe it or reject it. All that it means is that I have posted it here for others to read.

I don't get what you are saying (and I read the links)

So what are you saying?

1) Scientists are stupid ... and thus their work contains inherent contradictions that you have uncovered.

or

2) Scientists are part of a conspiracy to foist biassed anti-Christian views on an unsuspecting public, and thus their work contains inherent contradictions that you have uncovered.

Does one of these two sentences sum up your point of view?

I've said what I needed to say in my previous post. It's self explanatory.

Ebrown: I think the final paragraph of my summation post answers your question:

"Because I have reproduced their material here does not mean that I believe it or reject it. All that it means is that I have posted it here for others to read."

You seem to think there are contradictions in what scientists are saying, although the scientists in this thread (myself included) don't see it.

Taking words out of context from sources you don't understand and claiming contradiction proves only one thing... that you don't understand what the sources are talking about.

It is clear that you don't respect science as an endevour. You not only attack evolution, but you attack other core discoveries of science from Thermodynamics to Astrophysics.

It is clear that you don't accept science... But you haven't answered your belief as to why you think science has gotten it so wrong...

Do you think that scientists are foolish?

Or do you see a conspiracy?

Based on the insinuations you are slinging around at an entire profession...

... I think it is a fair question.

According to that post, bib, your conclusion is that you are neither an evolutionist nor a creationist. Funny, I thought this thread about about evolution, not about you.

You are correct! on both counts.

ebrown asked: "Do you think that scientists are foolish?"

1. Not all of them, of course.

2. Not all "scientists" apply the rules of "science" when presenting their "scientific" research.

I dont concede a single inch to your "quote and run" way of conversing. I looked at the Capra quuote IN CONTEXT. Youve forgotten that quoting serious scientists OUT OF CONTEXT is a favorite ploy of the Creation camp. I just wanted to see if you werent doing the same.
YUP, you are.
You took Capra out of context and tthen you are making a point how?, this is not in standing with your "who wants to know?" question.
You are, in fact practicing selective citation from many reputable scientists, and that is just bogus unhinged fact sharing.

I hear you say that you are not a Creationist

BUT
By your own methods you practice selective citation

Creationists practice selective citation

Therefore...

you havent even touched the argument of WHY is the second law of thermodynamics important in a discussion of self regulated biological systems. Youve only cited brief paragraphs that, in the cases that ive visited, youve only obfuscated the real meanings of the authors entire argument.
Unless of course, you cannot see your own contraadictory offerings. In thaat case your post should read 'Evolution-I wanna know"

critical Reading is much more than the quoting out of context, of people whove made contributions in unrelated and related fields.

Back a few posts you criticized various parentheticals like saltation or the "hopeful monster" as opposed to Darwins natural selection. You do understand that youre confusing methods of accomplishing natural selection , not alternatives to it.
Saltation, for example, is just another name for Punctuated equilibrium and we are beginning to see, by fossil finds that there arent as many giant gaps as once pointed out by Eldredge. Some paleos at SUNY and Queensland have sub sampled the EDIACARA and found many intermediate fossils up section that fill in the "Punctuation points" So this hypothesis is , once again , in question, just like the giant comet hypothesis at the KT boundary.

These are my ramblings but I feel they are more on point than your selectice cites about thermodynamics, especially since NOWHERE have you discussed the historical significance of Kelvins laws wrt evolution. This is really where the whole argument goes. Its not amatter of violation of any conservation or entropic state, its about a pompous ass who, in a state of self importance, took on Darwin and Huxley with a dismissive brief as to how evoluttion and uniformitarianism were both impossible because of his (Kelvins) calculations. This was done at a time when noone expected, or even knew that nuclear decay, tectonics, rotational friction and plastic state mechanics generate energy and much of this energy is converted and subducted. Thatt was another 100years away. Even Darwin didnt understand tthe ttate of inheritted traits.
You as much as anyone, should know that , the very Argument that dethroned Kelvins assumption of dissipation of primordial heat, gave us a radioactive clock method to calculate the very age of the earth. Ironic isnt it? Didnt you say that you were a student of geochronology? Didnt this thought occur to you?

Logic seems to apply here, heh, farmerman?

You keep reiterating that this thread is about evolution. So say something about evolution.

Read the 16 QUOTATIONs.

Bib says-

Not all "scientists" apply the rules of "science" when presenting their "scientific" research.

Then they wouldn't be scientists.

spendius.

Is it possible that Bibliophile is unintentionally stirring up emotions? The evolution debate in the United States is affected by political and religious factors that are peculiar to the United States. I am sure evolution is debated differently in different countries. Some countries probably do not debate evolution at all.

Exactly - that's my point!

Exactly,

The problem is that the people who do apply the rules of science when presenting their scientific research wholeheartedly accept evolution as proven.

These are the same scientists that are curing diseases, mapping genes, creating new medicines, and using robots to look for signs of water on Mars.

The problem you have, Bib, is that you are attacking the very scientific community that is so much a part of our society and has had so much success.

You are defending a very small fringe group of so-called "scientists".

The real scientists are the people you are attacking.