Topic: Two ways of stating hypothesis
June 20, 2019 / By Susannah Question:
Snowflakes and crystals are organized systems that arise spontaneously. Viewed from a limited perspective, they appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics, but of course they don't, their local decrease in entropy comes with a much bigger increase of the surroundings. Given that many Creationists insist that evolution can't "increase information" (presumably they mean Shannon entropy, though this is rarely specified) and that an Intelligent Designer produced humans, hippos, snakes, banyan trees plus a load of dinosaurs and other things, does he also make snowflakes? Or are you happy that snowflakes happen spontaneously? If so, why is the "increase in information" that arises spontaneously in snowflakes totally acceptable to you, but completely unacceptable when applied to biological systems?
No: an irrelevant quote from Stephen Hawking doesn't answer my question.
but here's one.
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]
The universe is a closed system, which means our lifetime in this universe is limited. Locally however, the sun gives us a constant flow of energy to do wondrous entropy-decreasing things. This is obviously not an unlimited source, it will eventually burn out, but while it burns, we can make hay and evolve.
A list of pre-Darwinian scientists, most of whom have been dead for more than 200 years, does not answer my question. I am not surprised that they did believe in God. Prior to Darwin, the God hypothesis was the most plausible explanation for our existence. I think even Richard Dawkins said that he would believe in God if he lived in pre-Darwinian times.
kdanley, go and find a primer on information theory and entropy. I do actually know about these things. I'm doing a PhD in Molecular Biophysics at a Faculty of Crystallography, and I happen to know that the formation of a snowflake is a form of information (it's irrelevant whether it's a crystal or mineral, I never stated it was either, the phrase "snowflakes and crystals" does not imply "snowflakes such as crystals"). You talk about the difference between a design and a pattern, but surely a 5-year old can tell you that many patterns are in fact designed (just look at the walls of a Mosque). You might also want to find out about evolutionary algorithms, which "design" stuff by incremental steps just like evolution.
and while we have your immense knowledge, why don't you explain why we share 7 common endogenous retroviral insertion sites in common with the chimpanzee. I've never heard a Creationist successfully answer that one.
The international mineralogical association redefined all minerals as being crystalline substances that arose from geological processes from 1995. So your little "Did you know?" is out of date.
Thought you might like to know that.
Ralphina | 5 days ago
We all know the only way evolution would be possible is if there were some sort of burning ball of plasma in the sky...
I'm gonna go work on my tan and tend to my sunflowers now.
You obviously don't know the difference between a design and a pattern.
Patterns follow pre-ordained laws. For example: If you see ABCDABCDABCABCD you can conclude that is a pattern.
Design is like seeing the sentence "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Design has information; Pattern does not.
Clouds produce snowflakes. Snowflakes don't arrive spontaneously. They form that way because they are following their atomic make-up. There is no information in a snowflake because it is a pattern. Do you think we believe that snow angels sit in the clouds and knit these things together?
How can scientific laws evolve? How can evolution produce pattern?
-Note to all evolutionists-
Don't ridicule creationists unless you have done a lot of research. Don't use out-dated science, poor logic, and refuted claims and then turn around and call US ignorant. We understand evolution better than you do.
Oh, by the way: Did you know that ice is a mineral?
Dr. Werner Gitt does a good job of defining information. Of course you can look at a pattern in a mosque and assume someone drew it. Yet you can look at a snowflake and think that evolution did that?
Chimps and humans have similar DNA. Evolutionists erroneously believe that similarity indicates relationship. Chevy and Dodge have similarities. That proves they both evolved from a Honda.
Keep in mind that evolution was popularized long before they knew about DNA or Cells. Just a small change in DNA can prove fatal for an organism. Can chance, mutations, and time change a chimp to a human?
DNA is like a computer program. Do you think that the programs you're running on your computer just evolved from ones and zeroes?
If you're right about the ice thing, than that is another example of out-dated, erroneous, and/or fraudulent information that is still in the textbooks.
-Good comeback on the Hawking quote.
They will probably not have a problem saying that they are intelligently designed. The logic will be that "God" created everything, including the laws that govern the universe. I'm guessing snowflakes will fall under this.
So, just exactly when did scientists achieve the capability to create a sky and have a snowflake fall from it? I didn't think so either!