Friend:
******The theory of evolution is not in conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics…………………….You are misinterpreting the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.*******My question still remains unanswered, i studied Evolution in school….long long years back……fail to understand why Evolution is still a theory??? Dictionary says theory means “guess or conjecture” – Now thats what you call BLIND FAITH. The problem is that Aethist’s can’t bring themselves to reject evolution, because they have already rejected God. Humans have a big mental fault. They are not able to admit they were wrong. Therefore, they are trapped in their previous decision to reject God. By the way, not being able to correct false thinking is another blow against evolution. The theory of natural selection should conclude that humans should be able to easily correct false thinking, because it is the most beneficial approach, but they can’t. This is why the debate between evolution and creation is hopelessly deadlocked.
*******However, you neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? ********
There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. Raw energy from the sun, if not for the ability of living things to convert it to useful energy such as sugars, proteins etc. would be a destroyer of life. In many of the scenarios of primitive life the UV radiation is looked as the driver of the mutations need for evolution, but it conversely would destroy the organism as well if not protected. In fact the mutation rate being very slow and the energy being very fast the destruction would be very many times faster than the creation.Raw energy from the sun, cannot create the specified complexity needed for life. It can only cause complexity to be lost in mutations. In the labs scientists use sophisticated equipment to polymerize proteins in the right way. If sunlight were to enter this process it would destroy the proteins.
Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live? A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers – all beginning from a single seed. If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)? What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
********Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. …………….What biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?**********
Here again Microevolution is extrapolated to explain Macro Evolution….no real scientific facts till date to prove this.
******In real life, lesser animals exhibit compassion and altruism all the time!Those things are useful survival traits, honed by millions of years of evolution —………………Look at piranhas. They seem to have morality — they never harm each other. But is it religious for them? No, it’s just what lets them survive.*************
Your reply about “Animal Morality” is ill informed – Piranhas are aggressive towards each other. Adult piranha have been known to eat their own babies. Its new’s to me that Animal’s stop to think before they kill. I agree that lesser animals exhibit compassion and altruism all the time, but its driven on insticnt and not on consciousness.
Only Humans have consciousness and feel a sense of right and wrong and good and evil. Even theory of evolution dosen’t support two set’s of primitive people in same time with different morality. Why do human morality is different all the time?? Why same Individual show different levels of Morality in his life??Why do children born in wellto do familes show criminal tendancies??? Why do we have more wars and aggressions these days than ancient times????.
Simply put, Human Morality is not driven by Evolution “Theory”…..it has got more to do with Religions and their teachings.
******If you read your own comments, you can understand why I said out of the box thinking is needed if you want to break away from the so called farce ‘Religion’. You are debating me on the topic of religion but none of the comments you have said proves anything it claims.********
Again, we have not started any thing on religions yet, i stick to my previous statement “lets start from the basic point where all religions converge….creation of life by a super natural power GOD… how do atheist’s believe life started? If evolution is not a scientific fact…..then how did Life start???
Me:
*** Why Evolution is still a theory??? Dictionary says theory means “guess or conjecture” – Now thats what you call BLIND FAITH. ***
Atheism/Agnosticism is not a religion, it is the refusal to join or believe in any religion until facts prove the existence of a god, gods, deities or any other number of mythical beings.
We are all born atheists, I am a non-theist. We are taught to be religious. Our parents teach us there is a god and we trust them because they are our keepers, our protectors and our teachers. Our faith develops in religion because of a faith in our parents to teach us right from wrong. However when you base this faith on the unsubstantiated claims of a book that has so many authors and translations that it should look like Swiss cheese, then that is where the faith ends.
Atheists are ridiculed because they choose to ask questions about the obvious, and when those in power get questioned, they retaliate.
Not just one religion falls into this category; all religions have the basis of faith through social order, teachings and acceptance. I however was lucky not to have been taught religion and I made up my own mind when I tried it as a teenager.
It’s all about social conditioning, not religion in general, atheists just choose to think for themselves and accept responsibility for their actions.
So you say, Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That’s right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn’t believe in evolution because it was “just a theory”, they’d probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means exactly what you mentioned in your comment i.e., a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Evolution is based on facts. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
So the lack of belief or giving credit to the THEORY of evolution is not blind faith but a rational point of view.
***Here again Microevolution is extrapolated to explain Macro Evolution….no real scientific facts till date to prove this. ***
First off, I’d just like to say that to evolutionary biologists there is no difference between the two. Evolution is evolution, the amount of it is irrelevant, it’s the fact of it that counts.
Secondly, I’m not about to come up with some magical evolutionary trick that shows that micro changes will lead to macro changes in an animal. I’m not a biologist, I wouldn’t really know where to begin. But what I can do is show how many small changes can easily make a big difference, even though each change is almost irrelevant.
Saying you can’t get macro but you can get micro is the same as stating you can walk to your friend’s house down the road, but walking to another city is impossible. Wrong, it’s only a longer way and you can’t yet see the city, (aka we can’t see it happening) but we know it is possible because we have heard accounts of people walking to the other city (fossil record) and because people have phoned us from there. (genetic “fingerprint”) . We don’t know that macro-evolution has happened only because of the fossil record, but because of a lot of other things.
***The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.***
2nd Law describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. Known as a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
This law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction – greater disorder. (painting a house regularly)
*** Simply put, Human Morality is not driven by Evolution “Theory”…..it has got more to do with Religions and their teachings. ***
Almost every theistic, religious system of morality is founded upon the premise that a god has created morality and has issued moral commands to humanity. Thus the nature of this moral system is ultimately obedience to this god, regardless of what the commands are. Neither disobedience nor questioning are permitted. Real morality, however, cannot be mere obedience: for a person to be morally responsible, they must be able to reason out their choices and decide for themselves.
Theistic and religious moral systems typically include prominent threats of punishment for disobedience, and even sometimes eternal punishment for the worst disobedience or disbelief. A truly moral choice, however, cannot be dependent upon a desire to avoid punishment. Moreover, eternal punishment for temporal crimes, however awful, is itself immoral because it is so disproportionate. The death penalty for stealing an apple would be less unjust.
Even if there are no promises of eternal reward or punishment, theistic and religious moral systems typically emphasize acting in order to improve your status in an existence after your physical death — even though the reality of such a existence is highly debatable. It’s immoral to sacrifice the needs of yourself and others in hopes of making things better for yourself in an afterlife which may not even exist anyway.
As a matter of fact, it can be argued that many of the problems we face can be traced to an over-reliance on religious moral systems which seriously suffer from the far too many flaws. Obedience to authority and dependence on ancient texts are a poor starting point for dealing with complicated modern issues such as genetic engineering and stem cell research.
I am ready to accept your side if you provide evidence. All you have done is question my point of view and not provided any substantial evidence for the creation of day or how life started. From your comments, I understand that you believe that God created life; is there some evidence or should I just have FAITH and not question it? If you believe that everything needs a creator so our creator should be God; then I have one question for you, Who created God? Funny right our ability to question leads us to dead ends, it is our incapability to answer questions that makes us create imaginary beings as an interim!
