Blog posts teaching creationists to debate evolutionist

[twin2]

THANK YOU.

The 2LoT gets used and abused so, so much. Human beings are not closed systems, we interact with and receive energy from the outside world and put energy out into the outside world (body heat, for example). The Earth is also not a closed system, the solar system is not a closed system, the galaxy is not a closed system.

My retort is that you don't get to use the second law of thermodynamics unless you have had to derive the second law of thermodynamics (P-chem *shudders*).

[Minerva]

My retort is that you don't get to use the second law of thermodynamics unless you have had to derive the second law of thermodynamics (P-chem *shudders*).

I second this.

[pirouette]

This guy seems like he knows a few animal breeders. Assuming he (or an imaginary creationist you want to debate) is an animal breeder - dogs, rabbits, livestock, whatever - then he or she knows that evolution is a gol-dang fact. Any time he tries to breed characteristics out of or into an animal he's expecting some sort of Darwin-theorized evolution, not Godmagic , to occur.

According to a video I watched once called "100 reasons why evolution is so stupid," this is okay because it counts as "variation" or "microevolution" (not to be confused with ACTUAL EVOLUTION which is a LIE!!!!!11!!1). The guy who made the video even went so far as to say that horses and donkeys were a result of "variation" from a common ancestor. The question, of course, is where does "variation" end and "ACTUAL EVOLUTION" begin? (If you're confused about the answer to this question, it's because there isn't one.) :roll: Evolution is basically based on the accumulation of small, gradual changes-- in other words, "variation." I'm pretty sure there was even a line to the effect of "have you ever seen a gorilla give birth to a human? no, because animals can't evolve into other animals!" in this video. :doh: Again, the cognitive dissonance, it's astounding.

Edit to correct the name of the video

[Minerva]

What really gets me about the DNA post is that he claims to be disproving evolution, but is really just arguing against abiogenesis. The theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life on earth. It explains how organisms change over time. Creationists are partial to this strawman because abiogenesis is far less developed as a theory than evolution, and it is therefore easier to argue against abiogenesis and pretend they're arguing against evolution.

It's intellectually dishonest, though. Imagine I didn't agree with my history prof's solidly sourced thesis on the medieval ages, but instead of arguing against that, I found a less solidly sourced paper on early human civilizations by a different historian, argued against it and pretended that I was refuting my history prof's thesis. You'd think I was the laziest student ever!

[Minerva]

Part three:

In The Beginning - Second Law of Thermodynamics

In case you are unfamiliar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that “In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.â€

Close. It states that the entropy in an isolated system will always increase.

Or in other words, things gradually deteriorate over time. A house left untended will naturally become rundown, and a neglected yard eventually becomes unsuitable. It’s just common sense.

I'll give the house analogy a pass, but an overgrown yard indicates a decrease in entropy since in growing, the plants have converted smaller molecules into larger ones, which cost them energy and increased the potential energy in the "system".

Actually, the entire universe is (very) slowly becoming more and more unstable itself. If the Lord were not soon returning, our entire planet would be destroyed in no more than 5.5 billion years by the gradual expansion of the sun. Obviously though, that’s not something Christians should even be concerned about.

I love how he can not believe in evolution while happily regurgitating other scientific theories that prove that the universe is more than 6000 years old. Also, I think it's pretty well accepted that humans won't still exist 5.5 billion years from now, so I don't think anyone has to worry about the Sun's red giant phase.

Now how on earth could a universe of perfect order be produced by a giant explosion 13+ billion years ago? Think about it.

Perfect order? What the heck makes our universe perfect? Why is it better than, say, a universe with only Population III stars? Or a universe without Dark Matter? Or the Star Trek universe? Calling the universe perfect is completely arbitrary.

Scientists theorize that everything in existence today – the Rocky Mountains, the Grand Canyon, and even your backyard – was all compressed into an extremely dense speck no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then suddenly, it exploded! A force more powerful than any atomic bomb then produced a universe of perfect order.

No. It is debatable whether we can extrapolate the universe back to a singularity. The Big Bang typically refers to a period of time during which the universe was particularly hot, dense, and quickly expanding. The Big Bang does not refer to an explosion. The thing about explosions, though, is that they're a massive increase in entropy, so even if the BB was one, it would certainly not violate the 2nd law.

Birds singing, beautiful waterfalls and glades – no, these things are not the Creation of an intelligent Designer; that’s stupid. It is much more rational (and scientific) to believe that a giant explosion formed it all. In fact, it is so rational that people have even decided to teach it in public schools as if it were already proven. Do you see a problem here? I know I do.

No, birds and the Earth's geographical features are not the result of the Big Bang, nor are they the result of an explosion. Birds are the result of millions of years of evolution, which is a result of life arising one way or another on our planet, which is believed to be a result of the planet's early meteorological conditions acting on the elements retained at the surface during the Earth's formation. The geographical features of planets and moons like Earth are partly the result of plate tectonics, which are the result of 1) the heat the Earth has retained from when it was formed from the Sun's protoplanetary disc and 2) the Earth's rotation, which is also the result of its formation from the Sun's protoplanetary disc, which is the result of the sun forming from a pre-solar nebula, which is the result of gravity acting on the remains of long dead stars, which formed as a result of gravity acting on the molecules formed during the later stages of the Big Bang. The geographical features on planets and moons like ours are also the result of thousands of years of weather cycles, which are a result of the energy generated by the Sun, which is a result of nuclear fusion, which is a result of the Sun's immense gravity.

These things can be traced back to the Big Bang, since that's what created matter, but they're mainly the result of the laws of physics (gravitation, the strong force, eletromagnetism, the conservation of angular momentum, etc.) acting on this matter. Not all of these processes involve the loss of entropy (the waterfall Dakota described represents an increase in entropy, as does the carving of the grand canyon), but some of them do. Here's the thing, though: the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that an isolated system as a whole will increase in entropy. It does not state that parts of that system can't experience a decrease in entropy. For a system to decrease in entropy, there has to be another system increasing in entropy, giving it energy. For example, increasingly complex life forms can exist on Earth because the Sun's entropy is increasing as it gives us energy.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything tends toward disorder. That is, until you begin examining the most important issue of all time: where we came from. Then, scientists say that chaos produced harmony, discord produced peace, and a random explosion produced, not only the entire universe, but even me and you. Who knew that one of the most popular ideas ever suggested by science would be so unscientific?

Yes, no and no. The Big Bang was not a random explosion, it is only marginally responsible for most of the modern universe's features, the world is arguably not peaceful, and when you actually understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the currently accepted timeline of the universe makes perfect sense.

When everything is studied in its full light, it is apparent that we have only one of two options to choose from. Either God created us, or He didn’t. If He didn’t, then everything we see must have been the production of a big bang and random chance. Without a doubt, only “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...†(Psalm 14:1)

How the universe and life on earth came to be is not tied to the question of whether a God is behind these events.

This has been yet another post where he promised to debunk evolution and instead attacked an unrelated theory. Not only that, but his reasoning was all over the place. First he introduces the 2nd law of thermodynamics (badly) as if the post was going to be about it. Then he veers off topic, claims that the Big Bang was an explosion more powerful than any atomic bomb, and claims that science claims that the Big Bang formed the universe as we know it. Then he reiterates the 2nd law, claims that science claims that the universe is harmonious and peaceful, declares science to be bunk and starts talking theology (badly, again). Could someone please sign this kid up for writing classes?

Not that "debunking" evolution with the 2nd law is sensible, either. I mean, ok, evolution doesn't make sense to you because it involves the creation of increasingly complex molecules and organisms, and you don't understand that that's only impossible in a closed system. Yet you live on earth, and you see this decrease in entropy happening all the time. Plants grow, converting glucose to cellulose. Your body converts sugars into glycogen. It's logical to either think "the 2nd law of thermodynamics must be wrong" or "I must be misunderstanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics." It's not logical to ignore every other supposedly 2nd law-defying occurrence you observe and just not believe in evolution.

[alba]

False. There is evidence that DNA could have formed spontaneously. Is there nothing in the Bible against lying?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Ninth commandment. Technically you can say you're not violating it unless you lie on the witness stand in a courtroom, but that's pretty shaky logic and making up shit to discredit people who disagree with you is generally considered a violation. Fundies probably think teh ebil atheists are exempt, though, because they're spreading God's word!!11!11!

But remember, evolution's only a theory :roll:

[August]

OMG I'm a Zoologist and this sort of things makes me so crazy. Miller-Urey proved years ago that if you have a hot little pond like ancient earth with water, methane , ammonia and hydrogen add a lightning spark - instant amino acids. Over 20 different kinds. amino acids - proteins - DNA :angry-banghead:

How do they explain the changes in dogs, birds and horse breeds over the years. ?

Actually, there have beens problems replicating the Miller Urey results. But there have been some really cool different experiments recently. There was an episode of Nova with one in it, fascinating stuff.

[August]

According to a video I watched once called "100 reasons why evolution is so stupid," this is okay because it counts as "variation" or "microevolution" (not to be confused with ACTUAL EVOLUTION which is a LIE!!!!!11!!1). The guy who made the video even went so far as to say that horses and donkeys were a result of "variation" from a common ancestor. The question, of course, is where does "variation" end and "ACTUAL EVOLUTION" begin? (If you're confused about the answer to this question, it's because there isn't one.) :roll: Evolution is basically based on the accumulation of small, gradual changes-- in other words, "variation." I'm pretty sure there was even a line to the effect of "have you ever seen a gorilla give birth to a human? no, because animals can't evolve into other animals!" in this video. :doh: Again, the cognitive dissonance, it's astounding.

Edit to correct the name of the video

Ye think ye have it bad, do ye? When I was but a wee slip of a girl, creationists would argue till they were blue in the face that there was no such thing as natural selection, that the only selection ever observed was artificial selection. aye, they were the good old days, indeed. Now they've come round on all everything bar abiogenesis. Not that the rank and file realise that "microevolution" is just a word Ken Ham invented to pretend he doesn't accept evolution. But, really they all do.

[pirouette]

Ye think ye have it bad, do ye? When I was but a wee slip of a girl, creationists would argue till they were blue in the face that there was no such thing as natural selection, that the only selection ever observed was artificial selection. aye, they were the good old days, indeed. Now they've come round on all everything bar abiogenesis. Not that the rank and file realise that "microevolution" is just a word Ken Ham invented to pretend he doesn't accept evolution. But, really they all do.

Haha, never said I had it bad. While I had some creationism thrown at me back in my more religious days, luckily for me it wasn't a huge focus for the religious groups I was a part of. (Far too busy with the gays, Muslims, and fornicators to even consider tackling the evil scientists.) I watched the video pretty recently, and very critically.

It's interesting, though, how much you say things have progressed in the "official party line" about evolution, so to speak. What always interests me about that is how much people seem to mock and/or gloat whenever creationists come around to accepting some part of evolutionary theory. People make fun of them for changing their "official party line" whenever they start realizing that something's off with their YEC model, but really, isn't that what we're doing too? To return to bats, the official stance was once that bats were rodents, but when science figured out the real story, was anyone mocking us for adapting the theory? Theories change as more knowledge comes to light. That's science. Maybe it's naive, but I'd like to hope creationists are also on our path, only a thousand or so steps behind.

(If you haven't noticed, this is something of a pet issue of mine.)

[August]

I don't mock them for accepting reality, I mock them for everything else. Maybe it's a holdover from your religious days to see flexible thinking as something bad to be mocked? It's a strength of science, and one of the ridiculous creationist strawmen to say that refining and discarding ideas which are disproven is in any way a bad thing.

PS, remember to use hypothesis for hypotheses and theory for theory. There are very few theories in science.

[pirouette]

Clarifications, just because I hate it when I think I'm being misunderstood, and then I will really and truly be done with this:

I'm almost positive evolution by natural selection is considered a theory, or at least that's what I've been taught. If I misused theory elsewhere, then I apologize, but I do mean theory in that case. No big deal, though.

Also it may have seemed like I was targeting you with the comment about mocking people, but I was not- it was just meant to be a side point connecting what you said about the changes in their thinking to some stuff I've seen (not here) about how annoying it is that fundies keep changing their mind about what parts of evolution they'll accept. Maybe the link wasn't clear. I'm personally thrilled they're slowly warming up to science... just wish they'd do more of it. Anyways.

[August]

I thought you were saying that ideas about bat heritage were a theory.

Where have you seen people talking about how they've changed their tune? I don't think I ever have, which bemuses me, because as recently as 15 years ago they used to be adamantly against both natural selection and evolution.

[formergothardite]

If they would admit that hey, they were wrong, microevolution is real, so my childhood of being taught that it was all fake and evil and the work of the devil was just a lie, I wouldn't mock them. But if they did that they would have to admit that they don't really know how to translate the Bible "literally", that science proves their religious beliefs wrong and so then they change their religious beliefs, so God and the Bible changes, and they aren't going to do that. So they just brush it all under the rug and pretend like Chrisitan beliefs on evolution doesn't change with science. THAT is something to be mocked.

I was taught as a child that God created all animal breeds on day six. So all dog breeds and cat breeds were created on that day. To say that man created a dog or cat breed would be putting him on the level of god. I wish I was kidding. Microevolution DID NOT EXISIT. And anyone who tried to say it did was following Satan.

[docmom]

I caught the tail end of "Beyond Intelligent Design" (great title :) ) on family radio this morning- one of my favorite times of the day because I get to release a lot of tension yelling at the radio. A major theme running through all the commentaries is how scientists change their minds and their theories. If the facts don't fit the theory, the theory is changed. To fundies this is proof that "evolutionists" are wrong. If you are flexible and willing to go with the data, your entire system must be wrong according to them. This is such a fundamental difference between science and literal biblicists that I'm not sure we'll ever be able to bridge the gap.

In my line of work we like to point out that if you don't believe in evolution then you have absolutely no need for a new flu vaccine each year or for any antibiotic other than penicillin. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is fact. The theories involve how evolution led to our current status not whether evolution exists.

[August]

If they would admit that hey, they were wrong, microevolution is real, so my childhood of being taught that it was all fake and evil and the work of the devil was just a lie, I wouldn't mock them. But if they did that they would have to admit that they don't really know how to translate the Bible "literally", that science proves their religious beliefs wrong and so then they change their religious beliefs, so God and the Bible changes, and they aren't going to do that. So they just brush it all under the rug and pretend like Chrisitan beliefs on evolution doesn't change with science. THAT is something to be mocked.

I was taught as a child that God created all animal breeds on day six. So all dog breeds and cat breeds were created on that day. To say that man created a dog or cat breed would be putting him on the level of god. I wish I was kidding. Microevolution DID NOT EXISIT. And anyone who tried to say it did was following Satan.

You expressed it perfectly!

I'm trying to figure out when the change happened. I've narrowed it down to somewhere between 1995 and 2005. I wonder if it was the internet that triggered it? When you don't have such tight control over the information flow it becomes self-defeating to stick to somethng easily debunked.

[formergothardite]

I think the internet showing the pretty obvious existence of microevolution probably did trigger the change in beliefs. Fundies are good at deluding themselves so they probably just block out that they have changed their thinking towards evolution.

[pirouette]

So they just brush it all under the rug and pretend like Chrisitan beliefs on evolution doesn't change with science. THAT is something to be mocked.

Fair enough. I guess I just want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when you put it that way, I understand why it's deplorable. At least science will (usually) admit they've been wrong.

[Boogalou]

Fair enough. I guess I just want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when you put it that way, I understand why it's deplorable. At least science will (usually) admit they've been wrong.

I see what both you and Formergothardite are saying. On the one hand creationists are at least marginally accepting of some new ideas but at the same time they are still not really accepting the science. Creationists make me sad. Not only are they rejecting pretty sound science but they just refuse to open their eyes to some really fascinating stuff.