Intelligent Design is not creationism

real life wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:

I highly doubt even Rosborne would agree with that. When Rosborne replied to you earlier (here) (s)he stated the biosphere (Earth) receives energy from the Sun and the Sun releases energy--thus, (s)he indicated that both are open systems. Rosborne seems to be the victim of a careless choice of words (here) than anything else. There is evidence of this in how (s)he laughed (here) when you accused him/her (here) of stating there are no open systems. This indicates that (s)he does think there are open systems. In essence, you have framed your argument on wording semantics than the gist of Rosborne's argument.

Earlier you asked me to name a closed system inside the Universe (here) but I decided to let others answer for me since it seemed so simple of a challenge. Apparently that did not work very well. It seems that you are confused about the differences between an open system, a closed system, and an isolated system. An open system is one where energy and matter can enter and escape. The socks on your feet, the engine in an automobile, the ocean, the Earth, the Sun, the galaxy, etc. are all open systems. A closed system is one where energy can enter and leave but matter cannot. A stopped wine flask, sealed TV dinner, vacuum-packed pickle jar, etc. are all closed systems. An isolated system is one where energy and matter cannot enter or leave. There are no such things as isolated systems and they are nothing more than idealized constructs. Even an asteroid a trillion miles away from any object cannot be an isolated system because it would be absorbing energy from the cosmic background radiation.

Name a naturally occurring 'closed system' using your definition.

What do you hope to accomplish by asking this question? It seems like you just wish to be irritating. It does not take much effort to think of one: an asteroid. But I shall stop beating around the bush now...

Evolution and abiogenesis do not contradict the concept of entropy. The chemicals postulated by abiogenesis combined--did "work"--by utilizing a free supply of energy. Energy is never used 100% efficiently so there is an increase in entropy. This is why perpetual motion machines cannot exist. While the chemicals combined and created a local decrease in entropy the overall entropy of the system (the Universe) increased. The energy provided to do "work" in relation to abiogenesis comes from lightning strikes. Those chemicals can continue to combine in whatever way they did by utilizing energy and thusly increasing the overall entropy of the Universe. Now let's jump forward to plants and animals and evolution. Life forms do "work" by utilizing energy supplied from an outside source--the Sun. The Sun has nuclear reactions that release energy. The nuclear reaction process wastes energy, some of the released energy goes to the vacuum of space where it serves no purpose and that energy is wasted. The Sun is constantly increasing the entropy of the Universe. Only a small amount of the energy released by the Sun reaches Earth. Plants on Earth use this little amount of energy to grow, create sugars, create seeds, etc. Energy is wasted in this process too so the entropy of the Universe increases. Animals eat the plants and animals eat eachother and use that energy to do "work" like having offspring. Again, energy is wasted and the entropy of the Universe increases.

Creationists tend to use the entropy argument by applying it directly to life forms. This is a misapplication of the concept. Entropy applies directly only to isolated systems that have no free supply of energy, like the Universe. Open systems, such as life forms, are only affected by entropy indirectly. The free supply of energy in open systems allows them to locally counteract entropy. It is only when the free supply of energy begins to cease, and thusly they convert from open systems to isolated systems, that entropy takes it toll. Life, under ideal situations, could continue to survive and evolve until the supply of energy is cut off, like when the Universe does it's show-stopping "big freeze." There is no contradiction amongst abiogenesis, evolution, and thermodynamics. A contradiction only arises when the interpretation of entropy is wrong. The entropy-against-evolution argument is nothing more than a bunch of creationist baloney.

Are you saying that matter is never added to or lost from an asteroid? Think again.

Energy alone is not sufficient to overcome entropy. Information is needed also i.e. the energy must be directed at the proper time, to the proper place , in the proper amounts.

Your example of plants confirms this. The DNA in plants has the regulating 'blueprint' instructing the plant how to use chlorophyll and other chemicals to conduct photosynthesis.

Entropy applies to all systems, not just non-existent, theoretical 'isolated' systems.

All living organisms (btw living organisms NEVER become 'isolated' systems. Where did you get that idea?) die and the organisms body decays, returning to dust. Is that only an 'indirect' application of entropy?

megaman,

The entropy argument being promoted by real life comes from anti-evolution propaganda. There are many creationist websites that try to mislead the general public by arguing that entropy disproves evolutionary theory.

There is no contradiction amongst abiogenesis, evolution, and thermodynamics. A contradiction only arises when the interpretation of entropy is wrong. The entropy-against-evolution argument is nothing more than a bunch of creationist baloney.

They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Lightwizard wrote:

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

They are already producing human tissue and anyone doing enough reading, especially in medical journals would know about the progress......

The Universe is designed by natural causes....

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

"Pure energy alone i.e. lightning strikes on chemical pools is hardly a means by which living organisms can be arranged from dead chemicals."

Wrong -- you haven't done the reasearch. It's been reproduced more than once in a bell jar and a primordial, organic oozy mass was produced. They are continuing to experiment with this organic "goo" and in our lifetime will undoubtedly reproduce the first basic moving, breathing oranism. That will be the time for gigantic plates of crow to be passed out for those with a whole box of eggs on their face.

Your enthusiastic prediction of 'what's gonna happen' is a long way from what has happened.

If scientists ever succeeded in producing a living organism from chemicals, it would prove that with intelligence and design it is possible. It wouldn't prove that it could happen by accident.

They're right next door to doing it -- I am still in close contact with those friends who were at Cal Tech and USC Medical Department from my college days. If you think it's daft, you're daft.

I did not state it was a "living organism," you did. It was organic and produced from a mixture of chemicals in existance in the primordial sea, and, of course, still in existance today. However, our seas have cooled over those millions of years.

Hi Lightwiz,

The difference between 'a living organism' and 'a moving, breathing organism' is .... what exactly? The phrases are substantially the same, are they not?

And again remember, even if an effort to generate life in the lab succeeds (which is doubtful at best), that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals..............will not prove that life can happen by chance.

How could it possibly? It is the farthest thing from chance that one could imagine.

It might show that intelligence and design could do so however.

Energy striking down on an ocean by lightning happens all the time. That is why it is wise to get your butt out of a swimming pool when it begins to rain. Feel free to ask an Alaskan Crab fisherman or anybody else in a similar ocean industry if lightning is rare or very common. Furthermore, The chemicals are carefully selected in the experiment but it is not because they think "well, this one may work." They tend to use specific combinations of chemicals that would be expected by the various proposed models. Some of the models are chemicals inside comets and meteorites may have started life when it crashed to Earth, chemicals produced by black smokers at the bottom of the sea floor, chemicals in clay substrates, etc. The choice of chemicals and the amount is not completely arbitrary like you suggest. Have you yet tired of misrepresenting science?

Scientists are not producing human tissue in experiments simulating primordial conditions with simulated lightning strikes.

Don't try the bait and switch here, Lightwiz. You're mixing two different stories, hoping we won't know the difference.

Lightwizard wrote:

The Universe is designed by natural causes....

Now THAT'S funny. Evolution (what you believe in) has no goal, 'designs' nothing.

On the contrary, I did not state that the choice of chemicals was abitrary.

I said that they were carefully chosen because they had the best chance of making the experiment 'work' i.e. succeed in producing the product desired.

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?

megamanXplosion wrote:

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?

I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.

real life wrote:

megamanXplosion wrote:

You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?

I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.

So you are claiming that the scientists are trying to create life forms by using chemicals that wouldn't be in the proposed "chance environments"?