Evolution VS. Creationism

[Uncle Martin]

Island,

 

Please change your signature,... it is very inappropriate.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

If you honestly think that "I" have avoided anything

 

08/27/2004 09:07 AM

Originally posted by: Freethinker

You are pretending to refute an extremely well established reference source. What credentials do you have to validate it? Your random illogical claims?

 

08/30/2004 11:22 AM

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Include your personal credentials specifically connected to particle phsyics.

 

08/30/2004 12:23 PM

Originally posted by: Freethinker

And your list of qualifications in the field of particle physics, which we all know you have supplied, because you would NEVER ignore a direct question, is overwhelming!

 

08/30/2004 01:18 PM

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Still dodging the questions eh?

 

Most of us here have openly acknolwedged what our level of expertice is on various subjects we get involved with.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: island

Well, UncleM you couln'a looked too hard, or you'd have found this:.....

Well I did happen to find "this" and am still not convinced.

Please disprove... or you will be admitting willful ignorance if you cannot do so, and yet still insist that there is no REAL plausibility when I say:

Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle

 

theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly

 

accurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfounded

 

leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume

 

that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the

 

satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropic

 

tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of

 

the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT

 

tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.

OK, I'll bite one more time. I accept the big bang, I accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What I don't accept and you fail to even hint at any evidence to support your claim is humans being somehow a major factor regarding the entropy of the universe. Being that we ARE a part of the universe and made of particles we are surely a part of the entropic process,... but no more of a factor than any other group of particles of equal quantity. Show us this, we don't need to argue what we have all stated that we agree upon.

 

Shifting the burden of proof is not going to cut it here. It is not up to anyone to disprove you, it is your responsibility to support your assertions. So please tell us exactly how humans are as important entropically as black holes and supernovae. I hope the billionth of a gram of anti-matter we have managed to produce is not your only evidence, because that would be greatly disappointing.

[island]

Dare I ask how you've come to conclude that, Uncle Martin?

 

My sig file is entirely appropriate, considering the willful ignorane that plagues this thread.

 

I could understand your concern if I was flaunting it around the forum in other threads, but FT's inconsistencies and false statements are perfectly in context with the problems in this this thread.

 

I think that it's important to keep alive the fact that FT doesn't understand how the second law applies, since it is critical to the continuing big bang event which can't end unless gravity or god stops the expansion of the universe... and turns around the arrow of time.

 

I was thinking about adding to that the fact that he stated much earlier and implicitly that a teleological argument is necessarily religious in it's origin, proving that he doesn't even know the difference that I'm trying to distinguish...

 

... and I was also considering adding to that the fact that he can't distinguish that the event which is responsible for time and the expansion of the universe can't ever be over until time stops and expansion stops.

 

... because all of these would be crucial qualifications for making statements about the validity of the prori.

 

I'm attempting to pin him down on the first point, but it's like chasing a greased pig...

[island]

Okay uncle Martin, I'll respond to you instead, and I'll change my sig file

[island]

This is more of the type of conversation that I would expect to have here.

 

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: island

 

Well, UncleM you couln'a looked too hard, or you'd have found this:.....

 

Well I did happen to find "this" and am still not convinced.

 

Please disprove... or you will be admitting willful ignorance if you cannot do so, and yet still insist that there is no REAL plausibility when I say:

 

Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle

 

 

 

theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly

 

 

 

accurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfounded

 

 

 

leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume

 

 

 

that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the

 

 

 

satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropic

 

 

 

tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of

 

 

 

the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT

 

 

 

tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.

 

OK, I'll bite one more time. I accept the big bang, I accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What I don't accept and you fail to even hint at any evidence to support your claim is humans being somehow a major factor regarding the entropy of the universe. Being that we ARE a part of the universe and made of particles we are surely a part of the entropic process,... but no more of a factor than any other group of particles of equal quantity. Show us this, we don't need to argue what we have all stated that we agree upon.

 

Hmmm... if we agree that... "the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.'

 

Then you can't just ignore evidence for acts that are efficiently directed toward the satisfaction of the most constant inclination of a deterministic universe as if it isn't proportionally affective to this primal need.

 

In other words, you can't just ignore evidence for acts that occur within the constraints of this innate principle, so a system which provides comparitively extraordinary contributions to the process ranks higher on the scale of systems that satisfy this FINAL cause, than something less practically productive.

 

You can't just leap to ignore the fact that the human system represents a preferred method for the satisfaction of the second law on a grand scale. That's just an observational fact that you can either accept as plausible support, or you can reject ONLY if you can show why supportive evidence for a higher level of satisfaction of the predominant inclination isn't proportionally supportive of the predominant directive, because the burden of proof DOES then fall on you.

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

 

Shifting the burden of proof is not going to cut it here. It is not up to anyone to disprove you, it is your responsibility to support your assertions. So please tell us exactly how humans are as important entropically as black holes and supernovae. I hope the billionth of a gram of anti-matter we have managed to produce is not your only evidence, because that would be greatly disappointing.

 

There is no shift in the burden of proof if I don't make unfounded leaps outside of the basic entropic nature of nature. Mine are the only TYPE of conclusions that can be drawn without making leaps.

 

That's why it's called teleological, because it is logical in context with the final cause.

 

You also left-out without comment the physics that

[Freethinker]

Your a master. But not good enough

Originally posted by: island

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

OK, I'll bite one more time. I accept the big bang, I accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Hmmm... if we agree that... "the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.'

Amazing how you can even pretend to make that connection.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: island

You can't just leap to ignore the fact that the human system represents a preferred method for the satisfaction of the second law on a grand scale........

This is not a valid statement. It is not a leap nor a fact. If you choose to "believe", assume or pretend that the human system is prefered so be it. In my opinion you are assigning the human system a much greater importance than is warranted or necessary.

 

I have read your posts in detail, followed and read your links, and considered your assertions. I reject the "entropic anthropic principle" on grounds of insufficient evidence. Please don't call this "willful ignorance", as I think we have a different view as to what qualifies as evidence. Ultimately you may be correct,.... you have not shown me, (or anyone else?) that this is the case.

 

This looks like a stalemate to me, so I will invite some others to offer a fresh perspective as I feel I have come to a dead end here. The argument with FT is becomming a "who's right-who's wrong flame war and needs to be redirected or ended. Agree that you disagree and try another topic.

 

Seriously, lets wrap this up. This thread is getting terribly long and looks like a good candidate for closing anyway.

[island]

We can wrap it up if you think that it's a waste of time to go on after you read this. That's fine because there won't be any reason to continue if we've reached an impass, and I've gain some stuff from the crazy "discussion", so I'm grateful for the lunacy anyway that it ends up.

 

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: island

 

You can't just leap to ignore the fact that the human system represents a preferred method for the satisfaction of the second law on a grand scale........

 

This is not a valid statement. It is not a leap nor a fact. If you choose to "believe", assume or pretend that the human system is prefered so be it. In my opinion you are assigning the human system a much greater importance than is warranted or necessary.

 

I would agree that the statement seems grandious when taken for its face value to literally weigh our direct contribution to the entropy of the univese, and I would agree that this particular aspect of it deserves better explanation, but I do not agree that you can dismiss the WHOLE ENCHALADA based on this one example, which changes nothing, because...

 

1) The same logic that you've used to compare our direct contribution to the entropy of the univese can be used to compare our contribution to that of a Dung Beetle or an Ape, which you "conveniently" keep ignoring while using the same form of argument against me.

 

You can't deny that there is a difference which indicates by your own logic that we are better at satisfying the grand-scale need than these other related systems even if we discount the black hole comparison all together, so the argument is still comparitively valid to SOMETHING, even it it isn't what I was aiming at, becase...

 

2) My comparison to black holes isn't made for its face value. It is made to show that humans can also do something that's highly relevant on whatever scale that only two other systems can do, which is important when you start comparing the potential for human entropy with that of other more evenly matched contributors, like our sun, for example, which can't isolate the release of enough energy to produce any antiparticles at all.

 

Regardless of that, there is always the question of, "How much straw did it take to break the camel's back" because the contributions are both, accelerating, and cumulative.

 

The required "further explanation" that I agreed needs to be given requires that we cast the idea around the universe where it quickly becomes apparent that the Entropic Anthropic Principle is actually a Biocentric Princple, anyway, because it quickly becomes very apparent that the same forces that evolved humans on a band of " A " single spiral galaxy, very likely also evolved similar forms of life on MANY bands of MANY spiral galaxies since they all evolved at "about" the same time and for the same reasons while using the same basic raw materials under similar conditions... bla bla bla similarity, continuity... etc...

 

That point stands alone without a lot of further justification, but it gets hammered home if you add a valid grand-scale reason/need for it. If it only occurs in spiral galaxies that have black holes at their center then it means that there is probability that we are systematically linked to black holes in the cumulative effort and it's a fact that we are barely in the infancy stages of our potential for this kind of contribution, just like when we first discoverd oil, so don't dismiss our proven and indicated POTENTIAL so lightly either ole' boy, or your missing an very important aspect of the physics, because the increasing ability to make these VERY SPECIAL particles is highly important to the projected future of our entire space program... giving us "REASON" in the form of incentive for increasing our efforts toward the satisfaction this need.

 

Originally posted by: <

[Uncle Martin]

I did not say that I could not find the strong and weak forms of the anthropic principle in your link,... I said your evidence did not lead me to accept either of them. Just a small difference. So I hope you can see there was no *** covering,.... although yours seems to be showing now. Have fun today arguing with FT if you wish,... I have made my views known. I may respond more in depth this evening,.... I have to go to work now.

[Tormod]

Island - please consider joining some of the other threads in our forums. I'm about to close this one as this thread is turning into a flame war.

[wisdumn]

and since the scientists can't agree and the thread is going to be closed, CREATION WINS!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: island

You also stated that my claims were "INTERSPERSED" with sound physics", rather than saying that my claims were "SUPPORTED" by sound physics', as if you'd suddenly deemed yourself fit to pass jugement on the applicability of the physics,

This from a grade schooler that is so embarassed about their utter lack of credible Physics background that you ignore every request to prove otherwise.

 

Unc's description fits you perfectly.

so I'm afraid that I'm going to have to cut you off here

You are in no position to "cut off" one of the Mderators of this site. Anymore than you are in a position to argue physics.

where you state that I have not presented sufficient evidence,

Sufficient? You have not presented ANY!

 

You have shown that you do not eve understand the CONCEPT of Evidence.

 

Muchless honest dialog.

since you have already admitted that you can't understand the physics that nobody else in this forum can understand either....

You made it up and thus you are the only one that thinks it makes sense.

The physics that I gave is extremely important and supportive to all of this.

And was rejected completely by a tenured peer reviewed Particle Physics Prof.

 

Until you can show us that you have ANY credibility, show us ACTUAL CREDENTIALS, your claims will continued to be viewed as the baseless unsupported ramblings they so obviously appear to be.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

and since the scientists can't agree and the thread is going to be closed, CREATION WINS!

 

Good ole Christers. Always willing to accept ignorance over information.

 

Yes all you have left is "I don't know" to cram your god of the gaps into.

 

Creation does win when ignorance is the judge.

[clumpymold]

Good ole Christers. Always willing to accept ignorance over information.

 

Yes all you have left is "I don't know" to cram your god of the gaps into.

 

Creation does win when ignorance is the judge.

Well put. Exactly my thoughts. :hyper:

[Ayoungnerd]

Not only that, most are stubborn or skeptical against anything that helps prove evoultion or helps destroy creationisim. As long as the remain like that, the religion will never die.

[IMAMONKEY!]

well ur pobably right.. it wont die, however.... I believe in evolution directly influenced by a diety.. .and that little bit on grade schoolers earlier wasnt very nice! i happen to be in 8th grade and i do not appreciate people talking about kids being stupid. I happen to be a kid and i bet that i am every bit as intelligent as you! so nyah! lol... sry... i got a little carried away... anyway... thats my post...

 

cheers m8s!

From ur lovely 13 year old friend