Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD

[doseofreality]

The answer is the question: You never believed in your heart.
If you did, you would continue to believe.

I did, I currently do not.
You are trying to imply that anyone who changes their belief , never really believed to begin with.
That is a false dichotomy, future events have no bearing on current convictions.

Would you tell people that they never really believed in their heart that santa claus gave them presents when they were children just because they no longer believe now???

 

[Jhana]

Ok I'll be happy to explain again, by reciting the Gospel which is encapsulated in this verse:

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

There we have it then. I'll just chuck the rest of the bible out, shall I?

 

[PennEd]

I did, I currently do not.
You are trying to imply that anyone who changes their belief , never really believed to begin with.
That is a false dichotomy, future events have no bearing on current convictions.

Would you tell people that they never really believed in their heart that santa claus gave them presents when they were children just because they no longer believe now???

Before the age of accountability children will not be held responsible for their beliefs. There is a difference between intellectual assent and a commitment of heart.

Beyond this I'm comfortable letting God judge our hearts and intent. I certainly can't judge what your heart believed or didn't, only what you espouse now. Which is an unbelief in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ to save you. I'm telling you that without Him you cannot be saved. There must be a reason you like hanging out with believers, perhaps it is because you desire to be one as well.

 

[PennEd]

There we have it then. I'll just chuck the rest of the bible out, shall I?

Although we cannot be saved by works, the works are EVIDENCE that we have been saved. By "chucking" the rest of the Bible, this would prove to be unbelief. (see above post to dose regarding intellectual assent)

 

[Stinger]

Wrong, it only violates the 2nd Law if we are in a closed system which we are not.

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry, doseofreality, but if you really understood physics and what evolution demands of it, you would know that it can't work. People who cite such articles generally don't know what they are talking about, but just cite them because they have been told that it is meaningful. Please, go study physics and what evolution demands of it and then make your own conclusion.

 

[doseofreality]

Before the age of accountability children will not be held responsible for their beliefs. There is a difference between intellectual assent and a commitment of heart.

Beyond this I'm comfortable letting God judge our hearts and intent. I certainly can't judge what your heart believed or didn't, only what you espouse now. Which is an unbelief in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ to save you. I'm telling you that without Him you cannot be saved. There must be a reason you like hanging out with believers, perhaps it is because you desire to be one as well.

Nice try, but no I do not desire to be a believer. I am comfortable around believers because I have been around believers my whole life. I am here to pose serious questions regarding the "why" you believe. Also many christians growing up do not get exposed to the serious intellectual problems with christian doctrine and supernatural beliefs.

 

[Stinger]

Additionally, the second law is only a statement about probabilities. It does not say what most definitely must occur; it allows for temporary moves towards decreased entropy. To say that it's impossible means that one insists low probability events never occur.

How often have you ever heard of all the air in a room suddenly moving to one side of the room, leaving the other side vacant and causing the vacated half to implode due to excessive external pressure? It takes work to cause that to happen, which is why vacuum pumps were invented. The possible number of states for the molecules in a room is so incomprehensibly vast that even though having all the molecules on one side is a possible set of states, the odds against it from ever happening are too vast to comprehend. In the same sense, but vastly more so, evolution can't happen.

 

[Stinger]

Actually, Jhana, the problem is much worse than you realize. Evolution, by its very nature, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics big-time, and therefore it already is a mathematical impossibility (according to the laws of physics). So, try to understand, evolution has already been proven to be impossible, therefore, people need to be looking at the only other method of origins, which is the supernatural, because natural has already disqualified itself by its own laws.

It doesn't. Read this, it explains it rather well.

Curious About Astronomy: Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics?

Sorry, Jhana, I've already got a degree in physics, and know what evolution demands of it... it ain't going to happen... not now, not in a billion years.

 

[doseofreality]

I'm sorry, doseofreality, but if you really understood physics and what evolution demands of it, you would know that it can't work. People who cite such articles generally don't know what they are talking about, but just cite them because they have been told that it is meaningful. Please, go study physics and what evolution demands of it and then make your own conclusion.

You are right, I am not a physics expert. I took some college courses though
However, I will trust in the evidence provided and peer-reviewed by the experts.

Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[LClark]

Key to this discussion is the relationship of natural and special revelation. Here are two sources to help you. R.C. Sproul, a 5 min. video and comments from Augustine on Genesis:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]'Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?'[/FONT]

 

[Stinger]

Actually, Jhana, the problem is much worse than you realize. Evolution, by its very nature, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics big-time, and therefore it already is a mathematical impossibility (according to the laws of physics). So, try to understand, evolution has already been proven to be impossible, therefore, people need to be looking at the only other method of origins, which is the supernatural, because natural has already disqualified itself by its own laws.

You are right, I am not a physics expert. I took some college courses though
However, I will trust in the evidence provided and peer-reviewed by the experts.

Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Hello doseofreality,

It is not life on earth which is a violation of the 2nd law, it is the development of life from non-life, or equally the development of one form from another which violates the 2nd law. Think of it like this: physics can explain how a watch works; the operation of a watch does not violate the 2nd law. But how that watch came to exist in the 1st place, physics can not say, other than to say that random chance and millions of years are not the answer. And if someone were to claim that a simple pocket watch had been transformed into a precision atomic clock, physics would say that such could not have occurred by random processes. (But this could be done by an intelligence acting on the pocket watch.)

 

[Jhana]

I'm sorry, doseofreality, but if you really understood physics and what evolution demands of it, you would know that it can't work. People who cite such articles generally don't know what they are talking about, but just cite them because they have been told that it is meaningful. Please, go study physics and what evolution demands of it and then make your own conclusion.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the general entropy of a closed system will tend to increase over time. That doesn't mean that certain parts of that closed system can't decrease in entropy, while others increase. And this law is only a law of probabilities.

To say that evolution is impossible because the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that overall entropy of a closed system increases, is to say that low-probability events never occur.

Similarly, to compare chemical compositions and electrical impulses coming together to form living things within a universe full of atomic compounds smashing into one another, as opposed to a finely designed watch where specific compounds are used, millled mined and assembled in order to the effect that a specific human organism can tell the time (since time is a concept first recognized out of conscious experience), then to say that because of this comparison, evolution can't have existed, is ludicrous.

It's like saying that I can't get a straight flush at poker because the jacket I'm wearing is made of finely woven kashmir wool.

 

[doseofreality]

Hello doseofreality,

It is not life on earth which is a violation of the 2nd law, it is the development of life from non-life, or equally the development of one form from another which violates the 2nd law. Think of it like this: physics can explain how a watch works; the operation of a watch does not violate the 2nd law. But how that watch came to exist in the 1st place, physics can not say, other than to say that random chance and millions of years are not the answer. And if someone were to claim that a simple pocket watch had been transformed into a precision atomic clock, physics would say that such could not have occurred by random processes. (But this could be done by an intelligence acting on the pocket watch.)

"the development of one form to another"
Does "micro-evolution" violate the 2nd law? Do adaptations and mutations?
Of course not since we see them occur today. Why then would you infer that millions of such changes over a long period of time suddenly violates the 2nd law?

Again I realize I am not as schooled as you are but if a leading theory for the development of biological life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why then is the theory not rejected by the scientific community??

 

[Jhana]

People need to understand something. Evolutionary theory only applies to life and mutations. Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.

 

[Stinger]

...

It's like saying that I can't get a straight flush at poker because the jacket I'm wearing is made of finely woven kashmir wool.

And with statements like that you reveal just how little you really appreciate what statistical physics says and what evolution demands of it. Evolution is a pipe-dream; no basis in real science whatsoever, but, since most persons don't want to believe in God, even most who study science excel at hand-waving arguments when it comes to the ridiculous notion of evolution of life from non-life. You know, there was a time when spontaneous generation was thought to be true, then that notion was shown to be false, but to do away with the notion of God, scientist have had to backtrack to a belief in spontaneous generation - in spite of all the scientific evidence against it.

 

[Stinger]

"the development of one form to another"
Does "micro-evolution" violate the 2nd law? Do adaptations and mutations?
Of course not since we see them occur today. Why then would you infer that millions of such changes over a long period of time suddenly violates the 2nd law?

Again I realize I am not as schooled as you are but if a leading theory for the development of biological life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why then is the theory not rejected by the scientific community??

Hello doseofreality,

If you will, "micro-evolution" is the exercise of an adaptation mechanism already built-in and operational in the life-from, so no, that is not a violation of physics, but no sequence of allowable changes can be construed into an unallowable change. A bird has built-in adaptation mechanism which allow it some amount of adaptation to its environment, but these adaptation mechanism do not allow the bird to change into a horse, worm, or tree; it will always remain the kind of bird it is.

As far as the scientific community in general, they are people, and most people do not want to admit there is a God, for this then means that there are moral absolutes and there is One to whom all must give account. So, as Paul discusses in Romans chapter one, they suppress their knowledge of God, even though He has declared His existence through the things that are made. So a student of science is without excuse for not coming to some kind of knowledge/understanding of creation. This is why, during the debate between ken Ham and Bill Nye, that Ken Ham said that this is really a clash of world views: those who see a Creator revealed through His creation, and those who refuse to see a Creator revealed through His creation. Believe me, scientists can be just as "political" as any lawyer, dancing around truth and twisting it as far as they can get away with.

 

[Jhana]

And with statements like that you reveal just how little you really appreciate what statistical physics says and what evolution demands of it. Evolution is a pipe-dream; no basis in real science whatsoever, but, since most persons don't want to believe in God, even most who study science excel at hand-waving arguments when it comes to the ridiculous notion of evolution of life from non-life. You know, there was a time when spontaneous generation was thought to be true, then that notion was shown to be false, but to do away with the notion of God, scientist have had to backtrack to a belief in spontaneous generation - in spite of all the scientific evidence against it.

Yea but we weren't talking about spontaneous abiogenesis were we, because you equate evolution and abiogenesis as being the same thing in your arguments for some strange reason. You keep saying that you have a degree in physics and yet you haven't actually proposed any argument to the contrary of what i said other than 'you don't understand any physics'.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is farily clear on what it means, and yet you wanted to use the assumption that a watch can't be created by natural effect without human interference. The law of thermodynamics doesn't require there to be NO human interference. By creating the watch, I have decreased the entropy of the watch's materials, since they are ordered now, and I have increased entropy in several ways, one being the heat required to mine the rocks to smelt the metal to make the watch.

That doesn't in any way negate the simple fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not contradict the idea of abiogenesis, and certainly not the idea of mutation, thus evolution, which we see examples of constantly.

The fact that the universe is an infinite space demands that somewhere or other, compounds come to form other specific compounds at specific temperatures around specific other variant factors that are concluded in the formation of protein strands that end up as DNA

Just because the conditions for life aren't thought o be what they were when Miller and Urey did their experiments in the 50's, it doesn't mean a jot that the theory is completey backtracked. The evidence for abiogenesis exists, since at one point life didn't exist, and now it does. I never said God had no part. But what I did say, in refuting your assertions, was that firstly, evolution and abiogenesis are completely different things, and secondly, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics neither contradicts the idea of evolution, nor that of abiogenesis.

It has been scientifically proven that organic matter can be synthesized in space. Whole chromosomes have been artificially created. Every year the scientific community's achievements on this front get better and better.

 

[Jhana]

Hello doseofreality,

If you will, "micro-evolution" is the exercise of an adaptation mechanism already built-in and operational in the life-from, so no, that is not a violation of physics, but no sequence of allowable changes can be construed into an unallowable change. A bird has built-in adaptation mechanism which allow it some amount of adaptation to its environment, but these adaptation mechanism do not allow the bird to change into a horse, worm, or tree; it will always remain the kind of bird it is.

As far as the scientific community in general, they are people, and most people do not want to admit there is a God, for this then means that there are moral absolutes and there is One to whom all must give account. So, as Paul discusses in Romans chapter one, they suppress their knowledge of God, even though He has declared His existence through the things that are made. So a student of science is without excuse for not coming to some kind of knowledge/understanding of creation. This is why, during the debate between ken Ham and Bill Nye, that Ken Ham said that this is really a clash of world views: those who see a Creator revealed through His creation, and those who refuse to see a Creator revealed through His creation. Believe me, scientists can be just as "political" as any lawyer, dancing around truth and twisting it as far as they can get away with.

Already you don't know what you're talking about, using big words to try to outsmart people. Micro evolution is the name given to any small changes made in evolutionary contexts, whether by adaptation mechanisms or by spontaneous mutation or otherwise.

A bird might have built in adaptation mechanisms, but it also has an almost unhindered ability to mutate. To use the argument that a bird can't change into a horse is just absolute extremist logic.

 

[Stinger]

Yea but we weren't talking about spontaneous abiogenesis were we, because you equate evolution and abiogenesis as being the same thing in your arguments for some strange reason. You keep saying that you have a degree in physics and yet you haven't actually proposed any argument to the contrary of what i said other than 'you don't understand any physics'.

...

It has been scientifically proven that organic matter can be synthesized in space. Whole chromosomes have been artificially created. Every year the scientific community's achievements on this front get better and better.

Hello Jhana,

I'm not trying to be difficult, and I don't mean to talk down to you, but you simply do not have a deep appreciation (nor deep understanding) of this topic. Both evolution (complex forms from simple forms) and the creation of life from non-life make similar demands: they both demand the creation of vast (essentially unmeasurable) amounts of information and complexity. Random processes can not do this.

And do notice what I underlined in your last paragraph. Artificially created chromosomes are just that - created! These are not the results of random processes, these are intelligent beings doing deliberate, calculated actions. The more you speak along these lines, then more you prove Ken Ham's point: life was created, it did not happen by random chance over millions of years.

 

[Jhana]

Hello Jhana,

I'm not trying to be difficult, and I don't mean to talk down to you, but you simply do not have a deep appreciation (nor deep understanding) of this topic. Both evolution (complex forms from simple forms) and the creation of life from non-life make similar demands: they both demand the creation of vast (essentially unmeasurable) amounts of information and complexity. Random processes can not do this.

And do notice what I underlined in your last paragraph. Artificially created chromosomes are just that - created! These are not the results of random processes, these are intelligent beings doing deliberate, calculated actions. The more you speak along these lines, then more you prove Ken Ham's point: life was created, it did not happen by random chance over millions of years.

If you don't mean to talk down to me then propose to me an argument that addresses the context at hand rather than assume to tell me that I don't understand the topic. Ad hominem arguments might win points with a young Earth crowd but I'm not them.