|
DURound (August 26, 2008 at 7:35 pm)
My point stands.
Entropy states an isolated system will tend to thermal equilibrium over time. It says nothing about whether the system, in this case evolution, can create 'order' or more properly can increase the information stored in a genome.
***If you were talking about evolution, then why are you talking with me. I never argued anything about evolution.
Did you make another mistake?
jhbbunch (August 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm)
Entropy implies that evolution will run out of energy and the 'ordering' process, or the information creating storing and storing process will end in about 4 billion years. And that is all entropy has to say about evolution.
jhbbunch (August 26, 2008 at 4:08 pm)
My point stands. Entropy states an isolated system will tend to thermal equilibrium over time. It says nothing about whether the system, in this case evolution, can create 'order' or more properly can increase the information stored in a genome. It says nothing about this. Nothing. It only says that the system will run out of energy at some point.
DURound (August 26, 2008 at 12:26 am)
Behe and Dembski use information theory because it is quantifiable. But they know some science. You don't.
---
You have no idea what I know. You are simply being insulting. I think this means you have somehow lost the argument so now you must turn to ad hominum.
As for knowledge of science... how many scientific patents do you have? How many particle physicists have you worked with closely? I can count mine.
DURound (August 26, 2008 at 12:24 am)
you are the one who is ignorant.
---
You are not making sense. The ONLY reason I mentioned Boltzmann is that you were saying things that were ENTIRELY contradictory to his equations. Thats all.
---
And people with big IQ's in ID/Creationism don't use the order/disorder garbage.
---
*** So you say. I'm not sure I trust you any longer. But just for the record, I did not use order/disorder "garbage". YOU were the one to start that nonsense.
jhbbunch (August 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm)
For someone who brought in Boltzmann, whose concept of order is that the hotter a gas is the more disordered it is and thinks that you need to give the detailed history of an isolated system when all you need to know in terms of the 2nsd law is its heat distribution you are the one who is ignorant. And people with big IQ's in ID/Creationism don't use the order/disorder garbage. Behe and Dembski use information theory because it is quantifiable. But they know some science. You don't.
XGralgrathor (August 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm)
« From "Richard Dawkins: Frequently Asked Questions," »
You don't learn, do you. You *will* *not* *learn* that by using mined quotes you mercilessly shoot yourself in the foot time and time again. You even provide the link so that *everybody* can see for themselves that the text you quote from *does* *not* support your case. How dumb can you get?
"Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation [...] is Darwinian natural selection."
DURound (August 24, 2008 at 11:36 pm)
Thanks, I'll remember that, but I had no intention of trying to 'beat you up'. I consider youtube debates more like practice. Next year I am taking ethics in school and we will also learn the rules and intricasies of debate.
*** Sounds like a good course. But in the end, being smarter than someone does not really make one "righter" than them. Having obtained by some means a much higher IQ than average, I have had to learn this the hard way. For you it may be easier. Just stay humble.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux (August 24, 2008 at 11:25 pm)
"If you, in the future, have knowledge others do not have, do not imagine that using it to beat them up makes you good."
Thanks, I'll remember that, but I had no intention of trying to 'beat you up'. I consider youtube debates more like practice. Next year I am taking ethics in school and we will also learn the rules and intricasies of debate.
DURound (August 24, 2008 at 9:59 pm)
I should point out that when I say "Life operates contrary to entropy", I do not intend to imply that the overall stream is not running downhill. |