The Problem with Christians

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I'm not the one making claims about whether it was designed or not designed. I have no beliefs about it.

It's impossible for you to describe non-designed life? Well you're done, then. You're assuming your conclusion.

We all know you do have beliefs about it. Non designed life would be much simpler. We could calculate the formation of its structures without arriving at unbelievably improbable numbers. It wouldn't depend on information. Life probably wouldn't have developed into slowly reproducing organisms like elephants and other large mammals, because the most fit organism from an evolutionary point of view is that which is able to produce the most viable offspring. Microbes excel at this, and I would expect life to never amount to much more than that. I wouldn't expect it to be dependent on protein machines.

Designed life would be a star that produces apples and oranges.

[AJW333]

Radically different?

"There are close parallels between the mathematical expressions for the thermodynamic entropy, usually denoted by S, of a physical system in the statistical thermodynamics established by Ludwig Boltzmann and J. Willard Gibbs in the 1870s, and the information-theoretic entropy, usually expressed as H, of Claude Shannon and Ralph Hartley developed in the 1940s. Shannon, although not initially aware of this similarity, commented on it upon publicizing information theory in A Mathematical Theory of Communication. This article explores what links there are between the two concepts, and how far they can be regarded as connected."    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in...ion_theory Emphasis mine.

It's late at night and I'll get to the other posts later, but I saw this and have to ask: are you even aware of the thing we're discussing here anymore, or are you just wrapped up in attempting to prove me wrong no matter what?

I'll admit to similarities between the two definitions- it's a highly technical field and I'm not totally conversant with it- but that doesn't make you any less wrong, because the points at which the two diverge are also the lynchpins of your case. Regardless of how similar they might be, they still aren't the same thing: in the case of information entropy, decreases in entropy are still possible, and thermodynamic entropy does not apply to evolution. In the context of the argument you were actually making- rather than this crusade of yours to trip me up by quote mining texts and cherry picking single phrases out of entire articles- entropy still does not work the way you're claiming it does. You're quibbling over an irrelevancy, while the actual point you were trying to make has fallen by the wayside.

Interestingly though- and this is the problem with only reading the opening paragraph of an article and then heedlessly citing it without checking the rest- you might want to take a look at the "Negentropy" section of that page. Personally I prefer the term "syntropy" for what that describes, but what you're looking at there is- yes- a type of negative entropy undergone by living organisms, where they export entropy to the environment in order to keep their own levels of entropy- in the thermodynamic sense, since that's the only one that conceivably applies to physical objects- low. So when you asserted that evolving organisms represent some fundamental reversal of entropy... no they don't. At best, they represent a syntropic process, even if you were correct that they do reverse their own internal entropy, which you aren't (not in the sense that you were arguing) they diffuse their entropy into the surroundings. Local decrease in entropy, net increase in entropy.

... And your own article shows it.

So, to recap: you were wrong on the factual case, you were wrong within the context of your own argument, and you were also wrong regarding your ideas about the subjects you were attempting to use in support of both of those incorrect cases. You were wrong here at every possible level of your claim, and based on the absurd tangent you were willing to go on here in order to "get" me, to the point where you cited a link that includes an ironclad disproof of your claim without even realizing it, I'm fairly sure you won't really get why that is.

But holy shit, man: if anything were a sign that you should be reading the whole text and not just the first few sentences of it, this is it.  

The definition of negentropy, linked off that article is,

"Indeed, negentropy has been used by biologists as the basis for purpose or direction in life, namely cooperative or moral instincts.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

It doesn't sound like a description of an energy process, but rather more like a philosophical statement. What is the relationship between entropy and moral instincts?

[TubbyTubby]

What it all boils down to AJW, is that you are an adult (presumably) that still believes in gods, angels, the devil etc. You're wasting everyones time because you clearly are unable to consider any evidence that may shake that belief. Why not just carry on your merry way in magic land and stop trying to discredit well established science.

Science doesn't give a fuck about your god, so why are you even bothering to question it? It doesn't set out with a premise to disprove anything, let alone ancient myths so stick your head in your book and keep out of adult topics.

If you want to learn, get some proper textbooks on the subject you're interested in and fucking learn it for fuck sake. If you want to question a theory, understand it fully and then propose your hypothesis in the proper process.

Like I said, science doesn't care about gods (unless observation hints at one) and you clearly don't care about science so quit your faux bulshitting fake interest and read your fucking scripture like a good boy.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

[athrock]

I'm still waiting for an answer for why God created restraints and obstacles for life.   Also, an answer to Esq.'s question as to how you guys can consider complexity evidence of design when complexity, according to you, is not evidence that your God was designed.

God is not complex. He is simple with no component parts.

I have seen this concept explained by both Catholic and Evangelical authors. Here is one:

Is God Simple?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/attributes-of-god

[athrock]

You assume that God is subject to the same laws of nature that you and I are. The laws of our universe do not apply to God who exists outside our realm of existence.

How did you acquire knowledge of a being that exists outside of our universe, or what the laws of that other x might -or- might not be?  You probably don't have any knowledge of me, or what laws I live under...and I'm in the universe talking to you.  To be blunt, if god exists outside of our universe, then his existence is moot, as it's functionally identical to non-existence in -this- universe.  If god isn't in my "realm of existence", why should I give a shit about god stuff?

This does not follow.

God exists outside of our universe (space and time, etc.), but He can act within our space and time when He chooses to do so.

As for how we acquire knowledge of this God, there are three ways that come to mind:

1. Reason.
2. Natural Law.
3. Revelation.

As for why you should care, the answer is simple: You're not going to be part of this "realm of existence" forever. There's more to come.

[TubbyTubby]

God exists outside of our universe (space and time, etc.), but He can act within our space and time when He chooses to do so.

How do you come to this conclusion? Give me an example of this interaction (bible stories excluded).

[athrock]

What does it matter that I choose God because the evidence for evolution is so bad?

First, you're lying.
You chose god because you got used to it. By parents, teachers, or whatever... society in general. You believed there was a god.
Then, when presented with evolution, your pre-ingrained notion of god was a bit at odds with it... and your mind decided to solve the dissonance by ditching the newcomer.

Is your notion of god accepting of you lying?

While it may be true that children learn about God from parents and teachers, etc., this does not account for the atheists who come to believe that God exists. Their upbringing, society's pull notwithstanding, includes learning all the standard arguments against theism from their parents and (let's be honest)an increasingly hostile cadre of atheist professors.

But putting that aside, why is it the case the one's notion of God is at odds with evolution? Mine isn't. The Catholic Church's isn't. You must have some bible-thumping, fundamentalist caricature in mind...

[LadyForCamus]

How about if there was no need for the mechanisms that work against it in the first place. And no carcinogens. Or cancer, for that matter.

Some. Design.

That is just not possible. The same chemical laws that allow DNA to exist are the same chemical laws that allow oxidants and such to react with it and mutate it. The same biological principles that allow our cells to divide are the same biological principles that allow cancer cells to proliferate. 

It's like saying: people get sunburns. Why not have a world without a sun?

God, is God. Why not have a world without a sun? Why did god create a world where the entities living in it were bound by it's natural laws? Why did he even create natural laws in the first place? How come things don't simply maintain their own existence via magic and sparkles? I've asked this a few times...still waiting for an answer.

[LadyForCamus]

Evidence?

Scientific or personal?

Are you kidding? You already know the answer to that mr. Science student.

[abaris]

But putting that aside, why is it the case the one's notion of God is at odds with evolution? Mine isn't. The Catholic Church's isn't. You must have some bible-thumping, fundamentalist caricature in mind...

I know it isn't. I grew up a catholic. But it's still trying to sqare a circle for any scripted god. On the most basic level, compare the time dinosaurs roamed the earth with our short existence. Two, maybe three millions of years, there has been something that can be called humanoid. Homo sapiens sapiens is much younger.

The dinosaurs died out some 65 million of years before. They lived for about, give or take, 180 million years. So how does any humanocentric deity make any kind of remote sense? It doesn't. Any god caring for a supposed creation doesn't.