I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Prime Factor
-
The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
First evolutionism is not perfect, but thermodynamic is not an argument against it.
The second law of thermodynamics says that heat energy will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one rather than the other way around
The second law says that entropy will tend to increase, but sometime entropy will decrease… only in a closed system it will always finish to increase. But life is not a closed system because the sun provide our energy… Creationism often say that the second law mean that everything is going from Order to Disorder and that Order will not pop up from Disorder. This is a deformation; there is exemples of order coming from disorder without any intelligence; snowflakes, lightning…
This is a good exemple of how creationist are creating more confusion than constructive criticism… Because at first the argument (for someone like me without formation in physics) seem valid, but it is just the deformation of a law (like the Occam’s razor)…
-
The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
First evolutionism is not perfect, but thermodynamic is not an argument against it.
The second law of thermodynamics says that heat energy will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one rather than the other way around
The second law says that entropy will tend to increase, but sometime entropy will decrease… only in a closed system it will always finish to increase. But life is not a closed system because the sun provide our energy… Creationism often say that the second law mean that everything is going from Order to Disorder and that Order will not pop up from Disorder. This is a deformation; there is exemples of order coming from disorder without any intelligence; snowflakes, lightning…
This is a good exemple of how creationist are creating more confusion than constructive criticism… Because at first the argument (for someone like me without formation in physics) seem valid, but it is just the deformation of a law (like the Occam’s razor)…
odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.
And Moses: good question. We dont’ have all that much to go on from a molecular biology/cell biology basis. There are a few ways of introducing genetic material:
One way is through simple mutations. The sun, or other carcinogen “zaps” the DNA causing splitting of the molecule, or a shift from one base to another. The cell’s repair machinery might skip this part, or repeat it unnecessarily, ditto for replication. Also in some genetic diseases “repeat sequences” tend to multiply themselves over generations (your mother might have a 20 CGA repeats in one gene - you might have 40 . . . ) - just another mutation.
Another way if you go back really far is through conjugation and transduction. Conjugation is where bacteria exchange genetic material on plasmids with each other thereby increasing the amount of genetic material in the group. Transduction is where a virus takes genetic material from one bacteria and puts it into the genome of another one. We see where this works all the time in humans - AIDS, and even the simple adenovirus is being sought out for it’s ability to “transform cells” (get the cell to integrate genetic material into its genome). Women get a pap smear to prevent against cervical cancer - this is caused by a virus. Same idea, basically.
Finally we have all the ways of non-monera genetic manipulation via simple meiotic mechansims - assortment, crossing over,etc. An offspring might have taken on more genetic material than was intended through sexual reproduction, giving it more genetic material to play with.People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.
Hope this answers your question. It might appear biased coming from a “intelligent design” guy tho’ . . . . -
@cystic:
Hope this answers your question.
Koo…
While I wait for my other question to be answered, how does evolutionist explain metamorphosis? Ex. How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the “mass of jelly” (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn’t it appear to be “stuck?”
CC, also mentioned DNA and cell replication. Here’s another question: The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the “plan”) and RNA (the “copy mechanism”). How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
-
odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.
What is odd ? That is what i said…
-
TG Moses VI - back to your reply post on the 3rd to “the goal of evolution is survival”. Can we really still use natural laws to reference to the most domesticated animal - us! Humans make their populations what they want, evolution will play a small part. It matters little with today’s technology the ratio of male to females in our population.
So what’s this Jedi religion in the UK all about? Does it follow George Lucas’ story/dogma or is it different?
-
@TG:
I don’t know, my sister is Christian (and from an athiest family no doubt), and I bet it wasn’t the fear of God and a life long eternity in Hell that made her become one according to her own will. (though I don’t like children being baptized when they have no yet the capacity to choose that religion as their own)
You brainwashed her!
-
“Can we really still use natural laws to reference to the most domesticated animal - us!”
Ants are very domesticated, but evolution wise, they won’t stop improving. Also, the gender split has remained constant for most of time.
“So what’s this Jedi religion in the UK all about? Does it follow George Lucas’ story/dogma or is it different?”
All I know is that it’s based on the movie Star Wars (duh). It probably centers on how to become a Jedi Knight and become “one with the force” and to resist the “Dark side.” Other than that, I wouldn’t even know if they worshiped Yoda. :P
“You brainwashed her!”
Wha… what the hell!? More like trying to brainwash me! :wink:
-
TG Moses VI - out of stupid curiousity, I did a search on “Jedi Religion”. Apparently THERE ARE people out there claiming to be practicioners of the “force”! In fact, there are groups in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand who are trying to get their groups recognized by their governments as organized religion! This may be part of a rebellious online prank, but it’s happening all the same! I guess the Australian government is warning people with fines for falsifying the census when it comes around. Some groups seem to seperate their “dogma” from the Star Wars movies!?!?! Others seem to embrace George Lucas for showing them the “light”!!!
My friends, I try to be open minded and defend other’s beliefs. But this is too much even for me. What a bunch of wacko’s!!! I’ll admit I’m a big fan of Star Wars. You’ve gotta give George Lucas the credit. The guy takes a chance on a movie idea almost 30 years ago, turns it into top grossing films of all time, merchandising galore, and now spin-off religious groups! What’s next people praying at his feet? Lucas for Emperor? It’s not hard to see why people follow their Jim Jones’ and David Koresh’s (spelling?)!!!
-
Well, thanks for passing along the info. I know it’s more than some online groupies trying to start some ruckus, as they been around for quite some time. But like you said, I’m not sure if the government has officially recognized them, though UK Gov might’ve last time I heard on the news about a year ago. I even think that some live in huts similar to that of Uncle Ben (Obi-Wan) in Scotland! :roll:
I really admire George Lucas, too. He makes the movies for himself (well, his son also! :wink:), not for some box office proceeds or merchandising (though set records in both). He’s also a very political minded person. A liberal (growing up in San Fran), though he often talks about how all people eventually hand over their power to a powerful ruler. And as you can see in Ep. 1-6 (and 7-9, though he probably won’t film them), it reflects that. If George did run for president, I would certainly vote for him! 8)
-
odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.
What is odd ? That is what i said…
it’s odd b/c i’m a creationist.
-
@TG:
@cystic:
Hope this answers your question.
Koo…
While I wait for my other question to be answered, how does evolutionist explain metamorphosis? Ex. How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the “mass of jelly” (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn’t it appear to be “stuck?”
CC, also mentioned DNA and cell replication. Here’s another question: The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the “plan”) and RNA (the “copy mechanism”). How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
too tipsy to deal with metamorphosis.
DNA and RNA are not that different - just one base (uracil vs. thymine). RNA is considered by some molecular biologists to be one of the first biological molecules due to its facility as a protein, as well as a genetic information carrier. DNA may have evolved due to its efficiency at condensing, replicating, or acting as a template (i don’t really know). Anyway, to answer your question, RNA may have come before DNA, the two are not different enough that they may have been the same molecule-type at one point. In fact, many viruses use RNA as their primary genetic information molecule. I hope this makes sense. The Alexander Keiths beer is really smooth . . . . :D -
it’s odd b/c i’m a creationist.
Wow. that is fanatism…
And you said once the bible was not a scientific text ?
-
[quote="cystic cryptPeople try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.
Hope this answers your question. It might appear biased coming from a “intelligent design” guy tho’ . . . .It does not appear biased, as you have not mentioned any need for an intelligent desing, you just told how it works. I think that was really good.
-
One for TG,
how do you explain the metamorphosis?
God turns each caterpillar into jelly and forms a butterlfy out of it :)?For the Jedi Religion:
I think it’s funny, total stupid, and shows how influental such fiction can become.
More interestingly, the Jedi would be the second totally artifical “religion” of the last 100 years.
Remember, there was this second class sci-fi writer, who once said “to become really rich, you have to found a religion”. Which he later did, and called it “Scientology” (which his first “clean” later committing suicide … what a joke, but what a dangerously powerful, greedy and ruthless joke) -
it’s odd b/c i’m a creationist.
Wow. that is fanatism…
And you said once the bible was not a scientific text ?
not scientific. Historical, anthropologically significant, literary, and most importantly a guide through spiritually muddy waters.
i am a creationist. maybe not a young-earth creationist - although it is possible to defend that at some level, i don’t really buy into it. but yes. i’m an intelligent design/creationist.
Fanatism . . . i don’t get it. I don’t even know what that word means. Is it like Fanaticism? And if so that’s a pretty subjective comment. Maybe in this context it’s good to be fanatical? And if i’m fanatical about this, then are you not also fanatical? I mean, you’ve mentioned hatred vs. certain religious types much more than i’ve mentioned hatred vs. . . anyone. -
@cystic:
not scientific. Historical, anthropologically significant, literary, and most importantly a guide through spiritually muddy waters.
The guide for those who seek guidance, and even then not the only possible guide.
Otherwise, i think we can agree, except for that we should not see the bible as historical in the sense thaat it tells us the history directly, but as a possible source for historians to look at the usual lifestyle at that time etc etc. -
“For the Jedi Religion:
I think it’s funny, total stupid, and shows how influental such fiction can become.”I don’t know. If that religion teaches them to be moral, upright citizens (as Samuel L Jackson, said, “Keepers of the Peace”), to resist the dark side (greed, hate, violence) and embrace the light side (helping others), then I find it much less “stupid.” Now if they ran around worshipping Yoda, that would be a much different story entirely. :wink:
”how do you explain the metamorphosis?”
Forget God. He/she/it doesn’t have the slightest clue of what’s going on, unless he does this for the fun of it. But as an evolutionist, not all insects go through the Complete Metamorphosis cycle of life. Cockroaches, very ancient insects by fossil standards, hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger. Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through Incomplete Metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult. Apparently at some point some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise. This is not absolutely proven. Not every step is preserved in stone and amber insect bodies do not readily fossilize (a big problem with evolution is fossil records). But it does show that life cycle evolution is not impossible, and this is a working hypothesis to compare findings with. By looking for remains of transitional forms, and by making genetic comparisons that show the distance between insect forms, and by examining insect growth processes that have continued today, the development of butterfly growth can be traced.
“People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.”
Okay, here’s another question. Evolution is small changes over a lengthy amount of time. We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether be it a car, gun, or computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
-
@TG:
“For the Jedi Religion:
I think it’s funny, total stupid, and shows how influental such fiction can become.”
I don’t know. If that religion teaches them to be moral, upright citizens (as Samuel L Jackson, said, “Keepers of the Peace”), to resist the dark side (greed, hate, violence) and embrace the light side (helping others), then I find it much less “stupid.” Now if they ran around worshipping Yoda, that would be a much different story entirely. :wink:True, but it’s funny that a movie can have such an impact (especially with this total black-white painting of good and evil in it:) …. btw, i love it!)
“People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.”
Okay, here’s another question. Evolution is small changes over a lengthy amount of time. We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether be it a car, gun, or computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
Actually, the first eye was not much more than a layer of photosensitive cells. the improvements came later. The first wings were for gliding only, the improvement came later.
Just like the first planes were pretty crappy compared to todays planes, or cars or computers.
But even a small use is a use from which the animal benefits and therefore can be “fitter” -
not scientific. Historical, anthropologically significant, literary, and most importantly a guide through spiritually muddy waters.
That is a “scientific” theory. Not a little toy to help you live nor something fun just to spread confusion in non-scientific domain. At least it is more coherent with Christianism…
i am a creationist. maybe not a young-earth creationist - although it is possible to defend that at some level, i don't really buy into it. but yes. i'm an intelligent design/creationist.How can you defend New Earth Creationist ? What, the earth is 10 000 year old, all the current species lived with dinosaur some time ago ?… But it take less than 2 000 and they completly disappear ? the flood probably. The carbone 14 test is working on a formula that say things are older than we really are, but it seem it only work for dinosaur, because between X and Y% of c14 remaining, there is only dinosaur and some mammal ?
Fanatism . . . i don't get it. I don't even know what that word means. Is it like Fanaticism? And if so that's a pretty subjective comment. Maybe in this context it's good to be fanatical? And if i'm fanatical about this, then are you not also fanatical? I mean, you've mentioned hatred vs. certain religious types much more than i've mentioned hatred vs. . . anyone.Sure it is subjective, because you think you are right. What i mean by fanatic is that you take everything the bible said even if this is incohrent with current theory. Also that is a little hard for me to be fanatical; i rarely said in what i believe, you only know in what i do not believe. Sure i feel anger vs some religion, not when they are personnal, but when they take space in politic & science - look at the thermodynamic argument, the earth’s atmosphere argument, the logical argument; these are only creating confusion. If you do not have any formation (knowledge) in physics/chimy/mathematic you will probably get conned… that is not science byt demagogy ! you see i do not fear the word anger. Will you say you are tolerent vis-à-vis Québec ?
-
True, but it’s funny that a movie can have such an impact (especially with this total black-white painting of good and evil in it:) …. btw, i love it!)
Well there are many reasons why Star Wars is so popular. It is the first and closest movie(s) set on an epic scale in the late 20th Century. Its adventures were chronicled in a “galaxy, far, far away” –a Space Opera of good versus evil. Until then, most movies were mainly one-shots, there was no Casablanca Part II or Gone with the Wind II. Many people say Star Wars is just good because of the technology (ahead of its time), though I think it’s so much more. If you ask me, religions have been founded on a lot less…
“The first wings were for gliding only, the improvement came later.”
True, but what about when wings first start to develop? IE just a protruding fragment out of the body incapable of flight, which will (after many generations) allow that species to glide. Until then, it would serve no purpose whatsoever.
Suggested Topics
