FAQ
It is currently Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:35 pm


Author Message
Roamer
Post  Post subject: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesis?  |  Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:50 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resou ... evolution/

The argument "Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.".

Gets countered by the argument "This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed."


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:23 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5603
Location: Iowa

Offline
Person one is saying local entropy always increases absent an external source. Closed systems don't have external sources. Open systems do.

Doesn't matter if you detail the specific dynamics of how entropy is reduced if that external energy is introduced. The fact that it can be fully refutes the original claim.

In short, they're moving the goalposts.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
Quote:
This tactic is extremely common in debates with creationists, who will often say "show me an example of something evolving today," or "show me an example of information increasing through random processes." When either of these are shown to the creationist, they will suddenly change the standards of what they meant by "evolving" or "information" to try and avoid losing an argument they clearly lost. The distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution is often left intentionally vague by creationists and intelligent design proponents just for this purpose.

An excellent example of the fallacy is when looking into a so-called "test" on creationist wiki ASK to see if information could be increased in a genome by making (a somewhat poor) analogy to the English language. In this case, it was asked to increase the "information" in the phrase "trap big animal paws." When this was repeatedly demonstrated, new and relatively unreasonable rules - unknown from the participants in the first instance - began to appear.


It's difficult using logic and reason to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither, or (as is happening here) they're being intellectually dishonest.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 1:56 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4798
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
an answer that was given to an incredulous female creationist when she said that order couldn't arise from disorder :

"madam, do you have children ? because if you do, you did exactly that, and it only took you nine months !"

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 4:38 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 228
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Increasing local order not only can happen, there's growing evidence it's probably inevitable. Jeromy England's work is probably at the leading edge of sorting through the theoretical underpinnings.

It's also probably worth noting the life versus non-life is a very broad grey range of different characteristics--not a "spark" as commonly assumed.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5603
Location: Iowa

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Increasing local order not only can happen, there's growing evidence it's probably inevitable. Jeromy England's work is probably at the leading edge of sorting through the theoretical underpinnings.

Do you mean absent the introduction of additional energy, or instead once some external source of energy is introduced?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:23 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 228
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
iNow wrote:
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Increasing local order not only can happen, there's growing evidence it's probably inevitable. Jeromy England's work is probably at the leading edge of sorting through the theoretical underpinnings.

Do you mean absent the introduction of additional energy, or instead once some external source of energy is introduced?


once some external source of energy is introduced


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:51 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5603
Location: Iowa

Offline
Thx for confirming. Suspected we were on same page, but wasn't certain

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:22 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Can I have some examples of evidence for creation, where the best explaination from naturalistic science has issues with consistency?

Yeah. The epic irony of Big Bang theory is right there, why it's been forgotten lately by both sides. Makes 'em both uncomfortable.

It was a Jesuit ( read: Catholic agent) priest who challenged the Steady State (no-creation) theory of accepted physics early last century. Those physicists, note, were mainly quasi-Christians compelled by their own science to hold a position at odds with their private sentiments. True atheism was pretty rare at the time. The priest called his hypothesis "the moment of creation from cosmic egg" and though his agenda was obvious his math was very very good. Must have been a great relief to many physicists, this theory that allowed a sort of creation, which they developed into "the Big Bang". The crowds cheered. The Pope himself practically blessed the fresh understanding of creation and awarded that Jesuit for his good work.

Over the years atheists have flattered ourselves that was some kind of triumph of science over outdated beliefs.

Big Bang is the best theory we've got right now...

But honest physicists, when they're not confronting anti-science zealots, admit Big Bang like most theories will likely be replaced someday. To a layman like myself, it appears extremely inelegant, rolling through the decades amassing Infinite Turtles to correct itself against awkward observations. Dark Matter being the latest turtle. If you ask someone who invested 20 years of their lives in Big Bang they'd call that "robust, and growing."

So, Roamer, yes there's your example of evidence for creation, that has issues. Because Big Bang is a creation theory, and its adherents are a kind of creationist.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:23 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Except that there is evidence (a key word that) that the universe evolved from a hot dense state, there is no evidence for biblical creationism. No one is denying that the Big Bang theory is imperfect and will not be the last word on the subject, but it is the best explanation we currently have based on the evidence (that word again), and is certainly better than faith based positions derived from Bronze Age myths. The Big Bang theory makes predictions that can be tested - in a lot of cases these predictions match reality, when they don't the theory is modified, you seem to have a problem with this but that is how science works. You are committing the straw man fallacy in your post likening acceptance of the Big Bang theory to a faith based position, it isn't, it's evidence based.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:37 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5603
Location: Iowa

Offline
^Indeed.

IMO, it's akin to arguing that the stork theory of childbirth is equivalent to our knowledge of conception, gestation, and birth. The argument simply doesn't hold up to even remedial scrutiny.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:21 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
On another note, this:

Quote:
It was a Jesuit ( read: Catholic agent) priest who challenged the Steady State (no-creation) theory of accepted physics early last century. Those physicists, note, were mainly quasi-Christians compelled by their own science to hold a position at odds with their private sentiments. True atheism was pretty rare at the time. The priest called his hypothesis "the moment of creation from cosmic egg" and though his agenda was obvious his math was very very good. Must have been a great relief to many physicists, this theory that allowed a sort of creation, which they developed into "the Big Bang". The crowds cheered. The Pope himself practically blessed the fresh understanding of creation and awarded that Jesuit for his good work.


is irrelevant... How the idea was conceived or by whom does not matter in science, acceptance of a theory is based on evidence not whether it was invented by a Catholic priest, a one-legged Guatemalan, a lesbian hippy or one-eyed trouser snake... If the theory had no explanatory power or did not fit the evidence but was merely based on wishful thinking, as you imply, it would have been ditched. You seriously need to learn how science works.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 3:55 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
I know how science works. For centuries before Big Bang good christians were compelled as good scientists to adopt blasphemous beliefs.

By the same token I don't have to like Big Bang to agree with it.

Anyway Roamer wanted examples of evidence for creation, where the best explanation from naturalistic science has issues with consistency. I provided one.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:00 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Pong wrote:
I know how science works. For centuries before Big Bang good christians were compelled as good scientists to adopt blasphemous beliefs.

By the same token I don't have to like Big Bang to agree with it.

Anyway Roamer wanted examples of evidence for creation, where the best explanation from naturalistic science has issues with consistency. I provided one.


You really didn't, you may think you did but then that just shows your first statement to be false :shrug: If you really think the fact that the big bang theory has been modified in light of new evidence provides evidence for creation you really need to develop some thinking skills. The fact that the big bang theory has some of what you call "issues with consistency" in no way supports, provides evidence for or has anything to do with creation.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
M_Gabriela
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:14 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 2:25 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Bs As, Argentina

Offline
Interestingly, Roamer (the OP) has decided not to share his thoughts on the many answers this thread has had...


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:07 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
Pong wrote:
Roamer wanted examples of evidence for creation, where the best explanation from naturalistic science has issues with consistency. I provided one.
You really didn't, you may think you did

the big bang theory... in no way supports, provides evidence for or has anything to do with creation.

We're having problems with our english. To me creation means coming into being. As opposed to having always existed.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:17 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
I have a problem with your use of always... Before the big bang there was no space and no time so you can argue the universe has always existed as it has been there since the beginning of time. This is a common problem of trying to use common sense and day to day experience when discussing physics...

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:56 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
You see even I'm susceptible to it... In my last post I said "before the big bang", that was sloppy. In the absence of time the concept "before" is meaningless...

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:00 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
"Always existed" sums up the Steady State theory, which the Big Bang theory demolished. Big Bang essentially says, "no, it was created."

Thanks but I won't suspend normal reason when talking about the Big Bang theory. It does confirm my point though: that according to Big Bang it is kinda meaningless to talk of a universe before the event. Let's not dance around: the point is that the universe had a beginning. There are no gods in Big Bang theory, but it is a theory about creation.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:27 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5603
Location: Iowa

Offline
Pong wrote:
Big Bang essentially says, "no, it was created."

This seems to be the source of the confusion. That's not what BBT essentially says. It doesn't touch on creation. Only the expansion after (if creation, in fact, occurred).

Pong wrote:
Let's not dance around: the point is that the universe had a beginning.

We hardly know this, though. That may be your opinion, and it may even be correct, but it's hardly some established consensus-based fact or to be taken as gospel in the way you seem to be suggesting.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:09 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 219

Offline
Cool. I've always been uneasy with the universe having a beginning. I thought the Big Bang modeled that, so grudgingly accepted it.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:01 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 491
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
iNow has said most of what I would have posted in response to your post but I'd like to comment on

Quote:
Thanks but I won't suspend normal reason when talking about the Big Bang theory


This is often an issue on forums. Unless you are a scientist or mathematician your "normal reason" is very likely to be wrong as you do not have all the data and do not understand what you are applying reason to... Also common sense has a very poor track record in physics, it's been shown to lead to false conclusions time and time again.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Zwirko
Post  Post subject: Re: How to counter-argue this counter-argument on abiogenesi  |  Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:10 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:48 pm
Posts: 13

Offline
Roamer wrote:
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

The argument "Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.".


I think our view of the effects of entropy increase can sometimes get muddled by focusing too much on the initial and final states. The transition from low to high entropy is where all the interesting stuff happens; this is where biology lives. Add a drop of ink to water to see the dramatic results of the spontaneous arising of order and complexity. Look at the universe itself: as entropy increases it fills with spectacular structure on all scales. There's no need to invoke magic.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy