Exactly. The only difference between RNA bonding with amino acids to form proteins, and hydrogen and oxygen bonding to create water, is the apparent complexity. The parts are bigger. They still work the same way.
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
Exactly. The only difference between RNA bonding with amino acids to form proteins, and hydrogen and oxygen bonding to create water, is the apparent complexity. The parts are bigger. They still work the same way.
That doesn't really answer Daniel's challenges though. When I design something, I always then build it with natural materials which have properties I am interested in using. The "design" comes in by how those materials are selected, arranged, and what the consequences of that arrangement are.
RussDill
Philosopher
I love how the misspelling of "Engineering" here perpetuates across the web.
Lets examine for a moment a simple case. Add gasoline to your car. Has the entropy of your car increased, or decreased? It has decreased, but the sum of all the participating bodies has increased, satisfying the second law.
In defense of John Ross, we can't see the context, much less the entire quote. It's impossible to say without the original article, which I'm guessing you've never read and cannot provide. Looks like you and other creationists everywhere will get away with quote mining this until the end of time. Oh, wait, sorry, I have access though my educational institution:
Note that once again, the person you are quoting is actually stating the exact opposite of your claim. He is stating that biological systems are not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics even though their entropy can decrease over time. He is also being overly pedantic. He's just saying that the second law, which is that "the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase" is always true.
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Good catch! This is how Daniel argues: out of context quotes, bad science from ID sources, ignorance and incredulity. He's got nothing!
Yep; and RNA and DNA are made up of fairly simple units - nucleotides (sometimes called nucleobases, nucleosides, or just 'bases'; but not called nucleic acids) are each composed of just one sugar (ribose or deoxyrobiose), a phosphate group, and a nitrogen base.
That's not how biological or environmental systems work - or how the components in them work, either.
Natural selection involves some consequences of how traits are portrayed (or not portrayed), and what the consequences of that are, but the process/es of natural selection doesn't/don't involve 'design'.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Daniel: Seems to lie by quote mining or cherry picking Dr. John Ross from 1980
!
steenkh states known physics:
:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Dr. John Ross, Harvard Scientist. Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Enqineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.
15 March 2015 Daniel: Seems to lie by quote mining or cherry picking Dr. John Ross from 1980.
This is known physics:
Could this be yet another creationist tactic to hide that they are lying? Quote text from a letter to the editor in an old edition a news magazine because there is no easy access to the full quote to show that they are lying. Ignorant creationists then blindly repeat the quote. Ignorant creationists again blindly repeat the quote. Until we have deluded creationists believing in their own lies.
Is Daniel ignorant of the existence of physics textbooks?
Such a total inability to understand basic English is really a ROTFLOL
!steenkh states known physics:
And Daniel seems to lie by quote mining or cherry picking a 1980 quote
:“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Dr. John Ross, Harvard Scientist. Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Enqineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.
15 March 2015 Daniel: Seems to lie by quote mining or cherry picking Dr. John Ross from 1980.
This is known physics:
- The second law of thermodynamics is generally stated for closed systems.
- The second law of thermodynamics can be used for open systems by accounting for entropy flow into and out of the system.
- The Earth is an open system. So we have take account for entropy flows elsewhere in the system. The Sun is an enormous source of entropy decrease. The Earth is a much smaller source of entropy increase.
Could this be yet another creationist tactic to hide that they are lying? Quote text from a letter to the editor in an old edition a news magazine because there is no easy access to the full quote to show that they are lying. Ignorant creationists then blindly repeat the quote. Ignorant creationists again blindly repeat the quote. Until we have deluded creationists believing in their own lies.
Is Daniel ignorant of the existence of physics textbooks
?
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Wouldn't it be better to say that the vast black sky is the sink of entropy?
RussDill
Philosopher
To be fair, he's not actually the one doing the quote mining in this case. He's relying on the intellectual honesty of a popular creationist.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I would say the "vast black sky" is an addition to the description.
The entire solar system is basically a closed system (little mass exchange).
The Sun is pumping out a vast amount of entropy that vanishes into the vast black sky.
By itself, Earth would cool down and emit as much entropy as it absorbs. But the Earth orbits the Sun! The Earth intercepts a tiny bit of the entropy the Sun pumps out and its entropy increases.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Which is why I added (Daniel is at least the blind creationist):
Could this be yet another creationist tactic to hide that they are lying? Quote text from a letter to the editor in an old edition a news magazine because there is no easy access to the full quote to show that they are lying. Ignorant creationists then blindly repeat the quote. Ignorant creationists again blindly repeat the quote. Until we have deluded creationists believing in their own lies.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,806
On Daniel's home planet, freezing water in a laboratory serves as absolutely no indication whatsoever that water left outdoors in sub-zero temperatures will also freeze.
Which raises the question: In Daniel's world, what is the role of the lab?
Which raises the question: In Daniel's world, what is the role of the lab?
I didn't say they did involve design. I was pointing out that whether or not they do, the components are the same. You can't argue for a lack of design of a cake merely by pointing out the ingredients themselves aren't designed. There's a level of abstraction missing from this criticism. No one would claim that cakes aren't made of naturally occurring atoms with chemical bonds that follow all the rules of chemistry. Any design element comes from how those ingredients have been arranged with the purpose of providing me a tasty after-dinner treat.
It keeps the dachshund company while I'm at work.
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 12,772
I haven't done this but I might.
There is no single religion or sub-religion that I accept in its entirety. To me enshrining a set of rules amounts to idolatry. Having a conception of idolatry must mean I have some rudimentary sense of an authentic entity that is worthy of worship. But that sense remains rudimentary, and all I have is a notion, nebulous and perhaps sentimental, that this entity has something to do with kindness. There are biblical phrases and concepts I love, but I do not see how I could accept everything in the bible as literally true. The contradictions nullify this possibility. For evidence of these contradictions just look at the many variations of Christianity, and the cafeteria-style selection of sins in each.
If in the beginning there was a pattern of information, and if that pattern manifested itself as the world we see that's pretty cool. I'm not immune to the implications. But instead of inspiring humility, Christianity (and maybe other religions) seems to break into categories of people who are certain that their interpretation is the only correct or even defensible version.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Indeed. Daniel said somewhere in one of his two threads (sorry, but I really don't want to have to trawl though all of them again) that he was trying to lead people to Jesus.
If the character traits he is displaying are indicative of what kind of person you become if you accept his faith, then he has done an excellent job of dissuading me from ever contemplating such a move.
This is my assessment of Daniel, based on his posting style and content, and it is not pretty reading: He is arrogant, confrontational, scornful, dismissive of disagreement, dishonest and ignorant (or at least wilfully uneducated).
To add to this, I'm fairly sure Jesus said something about blessed peacemakers, and the meek inheriting the earth.
Daniel: was Jesus wrong to say this? If not, can you reconcile your behaviour with the teachings of your master?
Very good........
Your impeccable logic would also say that I'll never win a lottery. Proof? To refute, just win the lottery!
Try again.
I wrote "incredulity", not "ignorance". It is an argument from incredulity, because your think it is impossible because you do not believe it is possible.
Your continued use of these kinds of fallacious arguments is inane ...
Please point out just one single argument you have made that is not just based on your gut feeling that DNA cannot be formed by natural processes.
Your misuse of definitions to form an argument is also an inanity. Now I am just waiting for you to trot out a misquote, and then we have seen your full hand ...
No, it is not. And if the definition of information really was like that, then it would be useless, because most real information would have to be covered by a new term, and you would be left with something that could not describe DNA, because DNA has no sender and no receiver.
I am prepared to believe that you do not intentionally state an untruth, but that does not make your arguments any better, it just make me pity you all the more.
Tell me, since you are not a liar, is it still OK to use quote-mined statements to represent the opposite meaning of what they were intended for? Or is it not a lie as long as you avoid checking the quotes yourself?
I did notice that you did not bring one of your fake quotes in the rest of the post, so you get some credit for that.
I would not call it "exempt", but the Earth is not a closed system, so you have to factor in the effects of the Sun. Your quote by John Ross has already been shown to be unsupportive of your argument (a distressingly common occurrence), and the Asimov quote has nothing to do with your argument whatsoever (You probably do not check your quotes at all, but come on, if Asimov thought that life broke the 2nd LoD, he would not have written as he did)
By the way, did you know that the 2nd LoD is a statistical law? That is, nothing in thermodynamics prevent entropy from decreasing, but statistically, it will always increase. So life and the universe could have self-assembled, though it is highly unlikely. So when you pooh-pooh statistics, you are also pooh-poohing the 2nd LoD that you like to misuse so much
Not all life is dependent on the Sun. Some life gets its energy from the thermic heat of the Earth.
Is that so? Maybe that is why nobody in the field think that Cellular structures were built in one step.
Is sunlight also destroying everything in the oceans?
Straw-man noted.Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it?
OK, tell us, why are you trotting out the 2nd LoD if you do not think it supports your arguments?
... and I expect that now that you have learned that the 2nd LoD is useless for you (and none of your misquotes were any help), you will stop using that argument, and inform your fellow creationists that they can stop too?
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Have you ever called one of the Customer Service lines in Bangalore and after a few minutes you realise that the guy on the other end of the phone has no actual knowledge of the topic you are discussing but is simply reading a script that has been prepared in advance by someone who knew just a bit more than him but he has to pretend that he is an expert?
I get the same feeling when I read this thread.
I get the same feeling when I read this thread.