Debunking Creationism

Satori

Destructosaur
May 2, 2001
4,507
3
38
.. from grey to black
Visit site
Here's something I found on some quack's website, so I wrote an email to show him his error in reasoning, and I thought some of you might enjoy it so here it is.

" The laws of nature prohibit evolution. Evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics, which says that the amount of disorder in a system always "increases. This is a fatal flaw in the theory because of the immense amount of disorder created by the very processes necessary for mutations. For instance, the radiation, which induces mutations, the mechanism for evolution, always harms the species more than it helps by helpful mutations (which have never been observed in the first place). " "

Firstly, mutations are neither helpful nor harmful, they simply are, and they exist independent of our subjective interpretations of them. Mutations are only beneficial if they turn out to help an organism, they are not beneficial in themselves, and evolution takes many many successive generations and involves many many various mutations in conjuction. The universe is in a constant state of flux, even our genes, and they mutate all the time for whatever reasons. You seem to be suggesting that all mutations are bad. If that were the case, life would not exist, cuz everything mutates, so obviously not all of these tiny mutations are "harmful", if they were then life would be getting worse instead of better (life is doing a great job of adapting, like always).

This idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is quite fatally flawed and based on a misinterpretation, which I will explain.

Evolution is little more than the propogation of order in parts of a given system (parts, not the *entire* system). Thermodynamics states that in a system as a whole disorder will increase, which it always does, but it does not state that no order can be generated in parts of the system. We cannot look at parts of a system and refer to these parts as being the entire system just to suit our purposes. Thermodynamics applies to the whole system, not just the parts which comprise it.

Example: You boil up some Alphagetties and start eating. As time moves forward disorder is increasing all around you, even in your soup. With each spoonful you are mixing up the soup, which is generating heat and causing molecules to move around. The heat you give the soup by stirring it is being released into the air and the air molecules in the room are being more and more disordered by your actions (disorder is increasing). Then you look down and see that the word "DOG" has appeared in your soup in a perfect line. Does this mean that the amount of order in this system (your soup and the room) has actually increased? Of course not. So much disorder had been generated when the word DOG came together. A 3 letter word in your alphagetties (order) does not outweigh all the disorder which occured.

Example: You grow some crystals in a test tube. This is inorganic material magically creating order before your very eyes. Does this violate the law of thermodynamics? No. As the crystals are formed molecules are being shuffled around (disorder) and heat is being generated and released into the air (which is even more disorder). In the end we end up with a highly ordered structure, but does the amount of order generated outweigh the amount of disorder generated? Not by a long shot. So, even in the case of highly ordered crystal structures, the second law of thermodynamics is not violated.

Example: Evolution. Molecules (amino acids) come together as part of an entire system which is increasing in disorder. As stings come together and replicate themselves by the basic laws of physics (nothing magical at all going on, nothing we can't explain) heat is generated and released and disorder is increased as a result.

Evolution does not violate the law of Thermodynamics. The law applies to a system in it's entirety, not the specific parts of a system (which is the fatal flaw in your assertion).

Satori
 
Originally posted by godisanathiest
Who was that? I would have thought it was quite obvious???

Just some guy trying to convince himself and others that creationism is more logical/likely than evolution.

I didn't really know what to say to that mutation stuff cuz it really doesn't make much sense at all. I showed what he wrote to my gf and she laughed so hard she almost puked. Obviously this guy is not very good at structuring and stating his whacky ideas.

I've heard this thermodynamics stuff a lot from religious fanatics looking to support their claims (as if a human concept like thermodynamics were a perfect theory on which we can base such claims, hahah). But anyway, I thought I would share the debunking of this assertion cuz it is one that not many atheists do not have an answer for, so I felt the need to provide it should you find yourself in such a situation where it may come in handy.

Disorder is always increased, even if the result is seemingly more ordered to the naked eye than when it began.

Satori
 
No offense Satori, but you haven't "debunked" creationism, only one man's poor attempt at arguing on it's behalf.

There are plenty of poor arguments I have heard put fourth by both sides of this debate. Just take a peek at any of the chat rooms on the net that pertain to this subject matter.

You should realize, that you are wasting your breath. There are three groups involved in this debate:

1 - Creationists
2 - Evolutionists
3 - Those who don't care

Your arguments will fall on deaf ears where the first group is concerned. Your arguments are just a typing exercise where the second group is concerned, because you are essentially preaching the choir (no pun intended). And your sentiments have no meaning to the final group.

In general, I find well-educated debate entertaining, but the Creation/Evolution debate always proves to be so fruitless, it's hardly worth having.

GZ
 
Originally posted by General Zod
In general, I find well-educated debate entertaining, but the Creation/Evolution debate always proves to be so fruitless, it's hardly worth having.

Thanks for your opinion. I am of a completely different opinion of course, as are many others. I don't feel the need to notify others of which topics I feel are worthy of discussion, but I thank you for your input nonetheless.

I just thought I'd put a misconception (misrepresentation of thermodynamics by the fanatically religious) to rest for a few people interested enough to read it. Since you are so obviously not interested, this post was not at all intended for you. I'm sure not all threads here meet your standards of fruitfulness, nor should they, and this thread is just one more of them. Personally, I feel that discussing who is the sexiest member of opeth is rather fruitless, so I simply didn't participate. Perhaps this mode of action can be applied to your reaction to this thread as well.

If you have something meaningful to the discussion to contribute then I welcome your input.

cheers,

Satori
 
Well, I think what General Zod said is true -- that a lot of people go into such debates with their mind made up. (After all, if you believe in creationism in the first place, rational thought and facts mean nothing to you. -- hehe, my mind is obviously made up against creationism. but my argument involves proof and science -- ok, sorry, sorry, we've had this discussion) :p

So, Satori, I don't think you should be offended. I appreciated the post -- it's fun to get riled up sometimes and to have even more arguments in my arsenal...even if they fall on deaf ears.
 
Yes, I find the notion of the religious trying to use science to justify their belief in mythology simply ridiculous. What's sad/scary is that people who do this can appeal to the more intelligent/logical people who normally wouldn't otherwise get sucked in by religion, and that would be a real tragedy (in my world view). Religion is a matter of faith, not of logic/evidence, and I feel it should remain as such and not cross the line. To me, making creationism into something scientific tarnishes and distorts what is meant by "science" (something I hold very dear).

I also feel that one should avoid any discussions which one does not enjoy, which seems to not be the case thus far.

Satori
 
Hello all, am new to this medium of discussion and am just figuring out how to post so please be patient. Just wanted to comment on Satori's post about thermodynamics being used by Christians to validate their beliefs. First of all, am I the only one who thinks that religion using science to prove itself is inherently contradictory? I also think it is very foolish of them to bother with trying to prove the validity of Christianity by disproving Evolution. One problem I have always had with many religious people I know is the assumptions they make about athiests. It is a reaction with them, the instant they hear that i dont believe in God they automatically assume I believe in Evolution and proceed to do their best to discredit it. They think that by disproving Evolution they simultaneously prove the existence of God. Even if somehow they disprove Evolution (not too likely, they find more to support it every second) it doesnt make their views any more plausible. Good ol Sherlock said to try and eliminate every possibility and whatever is left must be the truth. I think this is true, but it is also pointless because it is impossible to disprove every possibility. It has been a constant theme in our history where just when we think we have the world all figured out someone comes along like Copernicus or Galileo and suddenly our cosy little universe where everything was explained is shattered and we are left looking at naked infinity again scrabbling for answers.
I say dont comparison shop for your view on how the world came to be and why we exist. Dont think your only options are the ones a large percentage of the population believe in. Look at the facts, look within yourself and draw your own conclusion. Dont think that you must subscribe to one theory or another simply because they are the status quo and taught in the schools. Do what governments, the media and religion all dont want you to do, form your own opinions based on your interpretation of the evidence. If this seems like way too much work, then it obviously isn't that important to you which is fine. I am not overly concerned with how the Universe was formed, the only thing i was ever concerned with was if some kind of eternal torment awaited me after I died. On arriving at the conclusion that it didnt, I wasnt too concerned with the rest. I guess that kind of qualifies me as a practical existentialist, I dont care why we exist, i only want to make sure that no kind of neverending punishment awaits me after my demise. http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/images/smilies/cool.gif

Well hopefully that was on topic and wasn't too long. All comments and suggestions appreciated.
 
Originally posted by Lina
I appreciated the post -- it's fun to get riled up sometimes and to have even more arguments in my arsenal...even if they fall on deaf ears.

Thanks Lina! I knew someone would be interested and find it useful:)

If this guy writes back I'm going to start dialoging with him via email, and I'll post the highlights in this thread. One thing he said that was funny was that the amount of surface dust on the moon is proof that the moon (and earth) is only 6-10,000 years old. Heheh. I'm not making this up! This guy is really out of it. He thinks the noah's arc story is true as well. Geesh. There's a plant that is estimated to be 13,000 years old, the oldest living thing ever discovered, so that means it's older than the earth (?). Funny stuff.

Satori
 
Originally posted by Wax Poetic
Well hopefully that was on topic and wasn't too long. All comments and suggestions appreciated.

Thanks for the wonderfully written and insightful post, I'm sure many will find much in it to relate to... and welcome to the forum!

Satori
 
My post wasn't a commentary on the "fruitfulness" of your thread, as you have suggested. Rather, I was pointing out that you had not debunked creationism, only one man's poor attempt at justifying his own faith.

It is quite common, in debate, to either misstate the oppositions’ argument, or to make use of quotes by misinformed members of the opposition, and then attack. This is referred to as setting up a "strawman" argument. I have heard the creationist's argument, that revolves around thermodynamics, and the gentleman who you quoted is ignorant where that argument is concerned. So, while your dissection of his beliefs may seem impressive on the surface, the only counter argument that you have put forth, is one of made of straw.

I find it interesting, that you also took the "strawman" route with my post as well. You went on, and on, and on, about how my post was about the worthiness of your post, when clearly it wasn't. It would appear you are quite fond of setting up "strawmen" arguments, that you can easily "debunk".

GZ
 
Demonspell-

Actually, you would have to be a complete idiot to close your mind, and not allow for the possibility that you are wrong (on any issue).

I am not a creationist. However, I am also not convinced by the arguments put forth by evolutionists. Keep in mind, there is a reason that they call it the "Theory of Evolution".

Additionally, evolution and creation aren't the only two explanations of how we got here.

GZ
 
Originally posted by General Zod
My post wasn't a commentary on the "fruitfulness" of your thread, as you have suggested. Rather, I was pointing out that you had not debunked creationism, only one man's poor attempt at justifying his own faith.

The last statement in your post was what I was referring to, which I thought was quite obvious. Also, you seem to suggest that *I* think that this one example debunks creationism as a whole, which you then point out my failure to do, but I made no such claim, that's just what you wanted to think. Since everything you said was based on this misunderstanding it all seems kind of pointless to me and nothing more that a pile of verbal excrement. And this character analysis shit here is just plain silly, I don't know if your presumptions about people are usually accurate but in this case they are not.

It is quite common, in debate, to either misstate the oppositions’ argument, or to make use of quotes by misinformed members of the opposition, and then attack. This is referred to as setting up a "strawman" argument. I have heard the creationist's argument, that revolves around thermodynamics, and the gentleman who you quoted is ignorant where that argument is concerned. So, while your dissection of his beliefs may seem impressive on the surface, the only counter argument that you have put forth, is one of made of straw.

blah blah, hehe, suggesting that I have some intention of setting up this "strawman" crap is ridiculous. Blah blah, dissection, geesh, I was just sharing something I had learned, something that puzzled me once and I thought it would be useful for others to see as well. You are quite overanalysing this.

I find it interesting, that you also took the "strawman" route with my post as well. You went on, and on, and on, about how my post was about the worthiness of your post, when clearly it wasn't. It would appear you are quite fond of setting up "strawmen" arguments, that you can easily "debunk".

Strawman, hehe, how cheesy is that? I think you have a bit of conspiracy theorist thing going there! Yes, "it would appear" that's my secret mission in life, by day I avoid sunlight and at night I go on the internet to set up strawmen (whatever the hell that is) to "debunk". Give me a break.

Conversation which analyses the conversation itself is hopelessly nonsense. While I find your theories on my character quite fascinating, it's not so fascinating that I feel it is worth entertaining. Muwahahah :)

Satori
 
General Zod,
you wouldn't happen to be referring to Scientology would you? The problem with other theories is that the don't start from the very beginning. Creationism asks us to believe that at first there was naught but god, and all was created by him. Basically the christian viewpoint is that god's methods and motivations are beyond human comprhension, so we had best not question too deeply for fear of losing faith.
Evolutionism asks us to believe that certain chemical reactions with myriad possible outcomes occured to initiate what we now know as life. This series of reactions which create self sustaining life from basic chemical elements has yet to be duplicated by mankind.
Other theories tackle how man/life as we now perceive it came to be in its current circumstance on earth. They do not neccessarily pertain to the discussion on the actual source of life.
 
Originally posted by Demonspell
You would have to be a complete idiot to even take a creationist argument seriously, let alone write a thesis against it. Evolution is a fact.

I don't know if I'd call it a fact, but it's probably about as close as you can get to fact. Evolution is also probably the most likely explanation, and the vast majority of the evidence which agrees with it gives it a lot of weight. Even if the first organic beings on earth came from somewhere else it doesn't matter, they still had to evolve to create the complexiety of life we see today.

The thing with these science types turning creationists is that it further clouds the minds of many others who might not otherwise take religion too seriously (I of course being of the stark opinion that christianity is not good for anyone).

Satori
 
Originally posted by luke
Evolutionism asks us to believe that certain chemical reactions with myriad possible outcomes occured to initiate what we now know as life. This series of reactions which create self sustaining life from basic chemical elements has yet to be duplicated by mankind.

I recall some experiments done a number of years ago that suggested that once the building blocks of life were put together in water with sunlight and electric charges and such then the molecules quickly organized (purely by chance) into structures which could replicate themselves (purely by explicable chemical means). I'm not saying this research is right or wrong, just something I had read about. Crystals are examples of self-replicating chemical reactions.. it's really not that big of a deal.

Also, while I feel man can reproduce this (if given the correct amount of time and conditions, say a billion years or so with many millions of researchers trying every possibility just like early earth did), I also feel that this is not something hugely unlikely or significant either. I think life will spring up just about anywhere where the conditions and materials permit it, in the same manner that suns are born and such. cheers

Satori