The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

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.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Some design.

They have mechanisms to work against it though. WE are destroying them by our carcinogenic lifestyles. If I smashed your laptop with a bat, you wouldn't complain that it was poorly designed.

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.

[AAA]

They have mechanisms to work against it though. WE are destroying them by our carcinogenic lifestyles. If I smashed your laptop with a bat, you wouldn't complain that it was poorly designed.

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?

[robvalue]

Did I read this right, that if I gave you some particular life form, it would be impossible to tell if it was designed or not? Yet your whole argument is that humans are designed?

Why do you keep asking me to define what I think things look like? I'm not making any claims. You know that ridiculing me isn't the same as defending your position, right? It's called deflection, or the "tu quoque" fallacy. You're making a claim, and I'm pointing out why the claim is flawed. If you can't cope with that, it's probably because I'm right. I'm not claiming to be able to identify "designed" or "non designed" life.

I don't even know what you mean by "designed". I've asked for clarification and received none. I don't know what you think happened. Creationism? Guided evolution? A mixture of the two? I'm starting to suspect you guys don't even know what you believe.

I think it's been demonstrated quite thoroughly that this whole claim is entirely bogus, from every angle it's been approached from. We haven't even established what the claim is. If you have to keep it so elastic as to cover any convenient scenario, you may as well claim nothing.

[ApeNotKillApe]

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?

Placing limits on God?

[robvalue]

Oh yeah, still no answer as to whether God is ultimately constrained or not, in how he can design life.

Again, I can only conclude that some people don't even know what they believe and just make it up based on what is convenient at that time.

[Foxaèr]

Theists love to waffle on god.

They claim to know him on a personal level because they believe in his existence without the proof to show he actually exists.

Then they make this claim, an actually biblical one, that god is beyond our comprehension.

They waffle.

[AJW333]

Fair question and one that requires further explanation of the realms of God's existence. Before the creation of the universe, God was already extant. When he created the universe, he did not remain remote from it, but was free to interact with it. In fact, Christians believe that God is very active in this world and in the lives of those who believe.

Evidence?

Scientific or personal?

[AJW333]

Fair question and one that requires further explanation of the realms of God's existence. Before the creation of the universe, God was already extant.

I asked you how you knew whatever it is you claim to know.

When he created the universe, he did not remain remote from it, but was free to interact with it.

Cool story, but again, how do you know this?

In fact, Christians believe that God is very active in this world and in the lives of those who believe.

So he's not outside of this universe after all?  Strange, because a moment ago.......you said he was.

-and you still haven't explained how you came upon this knowledge.  You said it was a fair question........and then dropped it like a ton of bricks.  WTF?

I realize you guys hate the concept that the Bible could be a reliable source document, but I trust it just as you trust internet copies of research you've never witnessed or verified directly. Peer review, I hear you say? At the end of the day, you are still basing what you believe on second or third hand reports. How is that any different from a Christian believing that the reports concerning Jesus' miracles that were recorded by eyewitnesses?

[AJW333]

Look at it this way, if there was an all powerful God that did create the universe and was responsible for designing and creating life, then you would be wrong wouldn't you? All of the so-called proof of evolution would be rendered false and meaningless whilst my "faith of a 4 year old" would prove to have been the better choice.  If I am wrong and there is no God, what have I lost? Nothing really, unless you can show me that the life of an atheist is far better than the life of a Christian.

Oh, no!  Pascal's Wager?  Have we devolved into this now?

Mock all you like but can you honestly answer the question, "what makes your life better than mine?"